The Irrational Obsession
If it weren't for its support for Israel, the United States would have gotten along just fine with Saddam Hussein and have warm ties with Iran and enjoy popularity across the Middle East... right? Lee Smith reviews Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer's book %%AMAZON=0374177724 The Israel Lobby%% and concludes that a Jewish state has done nothing to curtail anti-Semitism.
Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer laid out the ostensible thesis of %%AMAZON=0374177724 The Israel Lobby%% last year in an article of the same name published in the London Review of Books. They wrote that, “For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel.”
This is false. Washington’s relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which we protect the world’s largest known reserves of oil to ensure the stability of global markets, has since the mid-1930s been the US’s vital regional interest and arguably the most important American interest save homeland security. This fact may be easily impressed upon the intellect of any American who has been in a car, but Walt and Mearsheimer are less interested in the strategic realities of US Middle East policy than in painting in broad strokes the background to events of the last few years. In effect, the authors of The Israel Lobby are trying to explain why the world has gone crazy.
Both scholars are products of the realist school of International Relations theory, which holds that states are self-interested rational actors. With The Israel Lobby, they want to show why the US government went off the rails, especially regarding the invasion of Iraq. From Walt and Mearsheimer’s point of view, Saddam Hussein’s regime had been contained and posed no immediate threat to the US, and war against an Arab nationalist dictator was a distraction from the war on Islamist terror. Since realism holds that states are rational actors – and even Saddam, though cruel, was not irrational – the only explanation for the US’s patently irrational decision to depose him is that some non-state actor must have gummed up the machinery.
Once Walt and Mearsheimer are able to identify the cause for American irrationality – not the Jewish state, but the lobby for the Jewish state – they walk their thesis backward in time to the ‘67 war when, in their account, this deeply irrational relationship began. But here is one sticking point among many that Walt and Mearsheimer cannot account for: If realism holds that states act rationally in pursuit of their own interests, then how did Washington get away with acting irrationally for forty years? Either Washington has not acted irrationally, or Walt and Mearsheimer’s realist model is irrational, or both.
The notion that states are rational actors is grounded in yet another convention – that there is something called an international system and it is based on respect for state sovereignty. Scholars and IR theorists often derive this principle from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 when treaties concluding the thirty and eighty years wars enshrined ideas like the equality between states, the right to self-determination and non-intervention. Though wars set state interests against each other, the so-called Westphalian system itself is relatively immune to internal challenges to its logic. Indeed, the creation of new states in the aftermath of the First and Second World Wars enhanced the notion of state sovereignty even if many of these newfangled political institutions, like Iraq, did not have the cohesive identity that held together European nation-states. The genuine threat to the international order, as the paranoid worldview contends, comes from non-state actors, like the pope, communism, anarchism and, of course, international Jewry.
Consider the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document that only makes sense in the context of the international order of state sovereignty. The charge that the Jews killed Christ is ahistorical; that is, in the Christian scheme of things it is an accusation applicable at all times, or at least until the resurrection. However, the belief that Jews have dual loyalties arises at a particular historical moment – when political sovereignty is invested in the idea of the state. By definition, a Jew cannot be either loyal or disloyal to, say, the Catholic Church; a Jew can only betray a political body defined primarily by something other than religious belief, like the European nation-state.
Islam, a political order and a revealed religion, accounted for this issue by relegating both Jews and Christians to the status of second-class citizens, dhimmis: Obviously the infidels do not owe their chief loyalty to the commander of the faithful so they will be accorded very limited power or none at all. It is only under the international system that the question arises: What would happen if Jews got power? With loyalty only to the narrow interests of their tribe, Jews would make sure everything turned out well for Jews across the world, no matter how much blood and treasure it costs anyone else as the rational order of states comes crashing down around us all – all except for the Jews.
The key difference between most anti-Semitic tracts of the pre-Holocaust period and The Israel Lobby is Israel itself; after all, Zionism, arises under the same auspices as the Protocols – the international system of state sovereignty. Theodor Herzl believed that once the Jews had a state of their own and the Jews could take their place among nations, the Jewish problem would go away and Jews would become like everyone else. However, as The Israel Lobby shows, the irrational obsession with Israel as the root of all problems in the Middle East and US policy there, the willful misrepresentation of Israeli policies, and holding the Jewish state to standards in war and peace that not even the United States cares to observe, never mind, say, the Islamic Republic of Iran – Herzl on this count at least was wrong. A Jewish state has done nothing to curtail anti-Semitism.
Hence, Zionism’s great achievement partakes of the assumption that anti-Semitism will always exist. It gave Jews, for the first time in two thousand years, political and military power as a defense against those who rant about the “International Jew,” “Jewish influence,” the “Jewish Lobby” and their concomitants solutions to “the Jewish Question.” Hitler, it is true, is different from the Iranian president who advocates a “World Without Zionism,” but that is because the Jews have a state and an army to protect themselves and not because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has neither Panzer tanks nor the Luftwaffe at his disposal.
It is curious that Walt and Mearsheimer maintain that the US would have a good relationship with a state like the Islamic Republic of Iran were it not for the Israel lobby and the narrow self-interest of this non-state actor. What makes their belief so odd is not just Tehran’s genocidal rhetoric, or that the Iranians have been clear about their intentions towards American interests and allies in the region – US hegemony in the Persian Gulf, threats against the Sunni Arab powers as well as Israel – nor even the fact that Iran has effectively been at war with the US since the ‘79 revolution. No, rather it is that IRI’s project for the Middle East is a direct assault on the theoretical conceit on which Walt and Mearsheimer have built their careers.
In Iraq, Iranian assets are determined to tear Iraq to pieces; in Lebanon, Iran’s client Hezbollah has created a state within a state; and in Gaza, the Iranian-funded Hamas has established an Islamic emirate that for now at least puts an end to any ideas about a Palestinian state. Iran is making a very cogent argument through force of arms and oil receipts that the international system of state sovereignty does not suit its rational self-interest. Why are Walt and Mearsheimer blind to the Iranian project for the Middle East? Because of the Israel lobby. The idea of Jewish power has made them irrational.
Lee Smith is a Washington, DC-based writer and visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute. He’s a frequent contributor to the Weekly Standard on Middle East issues.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
25 Comments
1. K T Cat:If states were rational then no country would have a socialist economic policy. It’s like playing a wishbone offense in the NFL. Doomed to failure.
Sep 14, 2007 - 7:46 am 2. reliapundit:good stuff!
on many levels, walt and mearsheimer’s claims fall flat on their faces.
they say israel dominates the us foreign policy.
not NATO.
sheesh.
we have more troops defending europe than defending israel – which is ZERO.
we have more troops in korea and also in japan.
none in israel.
not a single us jet has ever flown in defense of israel.
we defended the kurds for a decade at the cost of BILLIONS.
we retreived kuwait for arab/muslims..
we defended the kosovars: muslims.
we defended the saudi kingdom with troops and jets for a decade.
we defend taiwan.
all get more direct military aid than israel.
repeat: walt and mearsheimer are a JOKE!
ONLY ANTI-SEMITES COULD ESPOUSE AND BELIEVE THEIR CRAP.
Sep 14, 2007 - 8:05 am 3. ronbo:Very well argued.
One of the problems with non-state actors whose interests cut so messily across the lines of sovereign interests is that it appears rational to marginalize, if not eliminate, such actors. Scary to imagine that W&M wouldn’t have a big problem with that.
Sep 14, 2007 - 8:16 am 4. Andrew Zalotocky:IR theorists should adopt the concept of bounded rationality. Roughly speaking, this models human behaviour on the assumptions that people (a) don’t always act rationally, (b) have limited information, and (c) have a limited capacity to process the information they do have. It applies to states because “the state” doesn’t actually decide anything by itself. All the policy decisions are taken by human beings who have bounded rationality.
They could also adopt the concept of utility from economics. Economists do not assume that people act to maximise their wealth. Rather, they assume that people act to maximise the value they obtain from their economic transactions, and that the value each individual assigns to a particular good (e.g. money) will vary. Some people will act to maximise their wealth, others will prioritise other goods such as leisure time or job satisfaction. Utility provides a concept with which to model this.
It is applicable to states because policy decisions are not always taken to maximise tangible benefits such as control of territory or natural resources. States may pursue ideological goals that appear entirely irrational to others, i.e. they may derive considerable utility from goods that have little or no value to others. Of course, these goals are set by the ruling elite who may pursue objectives that only provide utility to themselves.
So we should say that states act with bounded rationality to maximise their utility, as defined by the current ruling elite.
Sep 14, 2007 - 9:25 am 5. Tim:Just a minor point re Saudi. U.S. foreign policy regarding the use Saudi oil to support and stabilize the global economy did not happen until after 1945, though strategic planners began thinking about shifting consumption (especially European & Asian consumption) to Middle Eastern oil in 1942-43. Up through 1945, the U.S. was the worlds’ largest producer of petroleum products, with the Soviet Union second. With U.S. investments starting in the late 40s, particularly after U.S.-Soviet friction over Iran in 47-48, the Saudis very quickly became the source of most petroleum for Europe and Asia during the 1950s.
Sep 14, 2007 - 9:40 am 6. Ian:When their article came out I actually e-mailed some criticisms to Mearsheimer at his school web page. (He actually e-mailed back, albeit briefly). The first thing I mentioned is that whenever you have to preface a comment by stating that you are in fact not implying anything conspiratorial, it is usually down hill from there, just like when you say. “I don’t mean to be offensive, but…” I was also startled at how amorphous the “Israeli Lobby” was conceived, effectively every person in public life who didn’t agree with the authors on the subject. I suggested that the authors’ real problem was with democracy. As to the persuasiveness of their account, it should go over very well in Tehran and among the editors of the NY Times. I must add that Barnes and Nobles has pushed the hell out of the thing, with every store I have been in being completely overstocked. They just put the 20% off stickers on the book, so they may have just figured it out.
Sep 14, 2007 - 9:47 am 7. Russ Mitchell:These reviews are a good idea: the authors, as with the last round of debates, should be encouraged to respond. I have found the resulting discussions to be a strong selling point for getting people to come to this site.
Please keep it up!
Sep 14, 2007 - 10:37 am 8. John:I can’t comment about the book, not having read it, but here are a few notions:
1) US foreign policy puts *way* too much emphasis on Israel. I mean, we gotta hear about it every night on the news like it was the 51st state or something. We never hear about Argentina or the Ukraine or Thailand – nope, it’s all Israel, all the time.
Quick, name three things Israel has done for the US, apart from taking a $4 billion dollar a year handout, spying on us or selling US developed Arrow missile technology to China. Yeah, me neither.
2) The Iraq war is in no way irrational. In the wake of 9-11, it became necessary to remind the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, et al just how fragile their existence is, and that if they continued to tug on Superman’s cape, they’d find out what he’s capable of (and some of them may still). Rolling over Afghanistan was simply too easy, we needed to make an example of a more substantial military — and Saddam fit the bill nicely.
That purpose of that war was achieved the day he went into hiding. The last 5 years of our occupation is simply because we’re swell guys and don’t want to see innocents killed in the bloodbath that would have ensued if we hadn’t stuck around.
No, really. None of it is any more complicated than that.
Sep 14, 2007 - 11:16 am 9. Andrew:I remember reading P.J. O’Rourke’s account of hs boat trip up the Volga in 1982 or thereabouts and making pals with some Russian journalists, one of whom asked him “With all of Middle East how do you pick only ally without oil?”
What keeps us protecting Israel is the notion that if we were to stop, Israel would be destroyed by its enemies, which we do not like, because Israel is a state with people like us in it; modern western types. It would never be anything but offensive to watch such a group be massacred by totalitarian racialist mystics. Nothing good would ever come of that.
Sep 14, 2007 - 12:19 pm 10. Gliker:John
Quick, name three things Israel has done for the US, apart from taking a $4 billion dollar a year handout, spying on us or selling US developed Arrow missile technology to China.
The same thing investing trillions of dollars in Japan has gotten you.
As if the US doesn’t spy on Israel.
Everyone spies on everyone.
Period.
You don’t think there are Brit spies in the US? If not, you are quite naive. Aren’t they the closest allies of the US? How could they?
Let me guess John, an alliance with the Iranians to wipe Israel off the map would be a better ’solution’ to the problems of the middle east…
I hear ya loud and clear, John
Sep 14, 2007 - 12:42 pm 11. wfjag:John said:
“1) US foreign policy puts *way* too much emphasis on Israel. I mean, we gotta hear about it every night on the news like it was the 51st state or something. We never hear about Argentina or the Ukraine or Thailand – nope, it’s all Israel, all the time.”
While it’s true that the MSM extensively reports about Israel, that’s not US foreign policy — that’s the MSM’s selective focus on reporting. The PRC’s People’s Liberation Army now provides the security for the Panama Canal, but, when was the last time you heard that reported?
According to at least some in the MSM, the real reason for invading Iraq was to get its oil (in addition to prompting by the Israel Lobby). Exactly one US official suggested that — National Security Advisor Sandy Berger at TOWN HALL MEETING on IRAQ at OHIO STATE FEB. 18, 1998, reported at http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
The Dems campaigned in 2006 on calling for a “new strategy” for Iraq. They got one. It’s working. They don’t like that. And, unlike the one developed by the State Dept., the top down imposed CPA (known by those who served there as the “Can’t Produce Anything”) and the later top down efforts, the new strategy is developing governance and cooperation at the local level from the bottom up. Neither the Dems or State Dept. bureaucrats like that either. That sounds like strong support for “The notion that states are rational actors” to me.
While it is true that the establishment of some form of democracy in Iraq would benefit Israel, that benefit would be only very indirect — since the totalarian regimes in the area would have to deal with an Arab-Muslim democracy which they couldn’t dismiss as an imperial Zionist state. This would under cut the favored past time of diverting internal opposition by demonizing Israel, and either deal with their own problems or face an opposition that can no longer be either easily diverted or discredited.
Oh, wait, now I understand — the Israel Lobby wants the US to establish an essentially stable, democratic Muslim state in Iraq which will accept diversity among its citizens and basic levels of individual freedom, so that such ideas will spread to other Muslim states, leading to growing economies that need Jewish bankers — crafty Jews — trying to control the world through spreading ideas like democracy, stability and prosperity!!
Sep 14, 2007 - 1:43 pm 12. Noga:The endgame of M&W is cutting Israel loose, stopping all American aid, cooperation and support, either militarily, politically or morally, and invest those resources in the much more profitable Arab states. Some would say that this hardly counts for antisemitism. Their hostility to Israel derives not from personal animus towards Jews but from a purely business, economic and political sense: There are 400 million Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. Interest dictates that the wishes of such a vast number of people will outweigh the safeguarding of the tiny Jewish minority from which little profit can be extracted.
So in order to let this interest get its heyday, they must create the correct atmosphere, make a case of the vileness of Israel and its bidders, the powerful Jews of America. And if a lie, no matter how big, is needed to make that case, then lie they will.
It is very simple. Antisemitism is defamation writ large. M&W defame and lie in order to make Jews appear criminal and power-hungry. So while they may not be strictly antisemitic in inclination, they are antisemitic in fact. A Soprano like morality prevails: the harm done to the other is nothing personal. It is all Strictly Business.
So when they deny any antisemitic motivation, they cannot be taken seriously, since they view Jews as a disposable commodity, to be garbaged when done or when other, more glittering commodities beckon.
However, it is one thing to stir up traditional anti-Jewish anxieties in order to effect a change in public sentiment by defamation, quite another to try to cage and control the reaction of the targeted quarry of such a campaign by alleging intimidation (give me a break…) It should be clear that antisemites do not get to determine who or what is an antisemite.
And that goes for all antisemites, whether they be famous, little-known, first-grade or third-grade antisemite.
Sep 14, 2007 - 1:54 pm 13. S Silverstein:For my opinions on these issues and a surprise reply from a Real Big Man on Campus, see my emails to Michael Smerconish, a radio talk show host who’s
started a furor in Philadelphia over his support of the Walt/Mearsheimer work.
I spoke of the need for increased sensitivity to the angry responses from the Jewish community to Walt and Mearshiemer, reponses based on 2,000 years
of persecution often started through polemical writings.
My emails were CC’d to Walt and Mearsheimer.
Note the puerile reponse from someone not on the mailing list, Michael Desch, Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National
Security Decision-making at TAMU. W&M must have forwarded to him, but don’t have the balls to reply themselves.
Stunning.
Email thread is at this link.
Sep 14, 2007 - 6:40 pm 14. John:Gliker,
>>>Let me guess John, an alliance with the Iranians to wipe Israel off the map would be a better ’solution’ to the problems of the middle east…
>>>I hear ya loud and clear, John
That’s a pretty flaccid response, dontcha think? Me thinking that the US exposes itself to too much danger in perpetually supporting Israel is the equivalent of partnering up with Iran to wipe it off the map?
Jeez Louise, ya gotta do better than that.
And for those of you playing along at home, notice the kneejerk reaction: comment remotely critical of Israel = advocation of genocide.
It’s getting old. Time to stop hiding behind the holocaust and defend our relationship with Israel based on facts and reason, not emotion and fear mongering.
Don’t get me wrong, I love Israel and wish them all the best – but it’s time for them to stand on their own 2 feet and resolve their differences with their neighbors in whatever fashion necessary, peacefully or otherwise.
Sep 14, 2007 - 6:57 pm 15. venividivici:Me thinking that the US exposes itself to too much danger in perpetually supporting Israel is the equivalent of partnering up with Iran to wipe it off the map?
While I won’t go down that road, I do find it interesting that you basically admit that the US exposes itself to danger simply by supporting Israel. Why is that? My analysis says it’s because the religious nuts who opposes Israel (the Muslims) are psychotics who oppose anyone who doesn’t feel like praying to some moon god five times a day and following a pedophile murderer who considered himself a prophet. My solution? Oh, let your imagination run wild. Basically, it’s not less support of Israel that will get us out of this mess, it’s **** ******* ** *******.
Sep 14, 2007 - 7:27 pm 16. Lou Gots:National intentions and interests are to be inferred from objective indicatorsnot declarations.
Our concerns in the Mddle East are derived from geopolitical realities, not what ourt politicians pronounce for foreign and domestic consumption.
Now the Middle East is a key, strategic area in the Anglospheric, that is, Mahonian, scheme: naval choke points and the strategic resource, oil. Let others claim the Euroasian heartland, we dominate the access to and from the heartland.
Great Britain once played the Great Game, but a the end of World War Two they had become a spend force and it became our responsibility to step up as Weltmachthaber.
To that end, we speedily recognized the Zionist entity as our hostage to empire. Thus we insured that neither the poltroon impuse nor isolationism would seduce us away from out imperial responsibilities.
It is not that Israel uses us, or not only that, but that we use Israel to anchor our Middle Eastern policy.
And it worked very well, and it continues to work, as we see by the confusion of the so-called, self-proclaimed “progressives.” They really don’t know what to say about Israel.
Viewed thusly, what are we to say about who may be called the “realist?” Surely the Mearsheimer/Walt types are the misty-eyed dreamers. They are the ones who ignore our national interests in favor of slogans, dreams, buzz-words.
Sep 15, 2007 - 10:09 am 17. John:>>> I do find it interesting that you basically admit that the US exposes itself to danger simply by supporting Israel. Why is that?
Well, define “simply”. By “simply” do you mean handing them $4 billion a year, selling them superior warfighting technology that allows them to maintain military supremacy in the region, supporting them diplomatically in every instance and turning a blind eye to their abrogation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty while imposing it on every other muslim nation on Earth?
That kind of “simple” support?
Everyone needs to wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?
That is in no way an argument whether the UN should have taken such action or not, it is a review of how this whole mess started.
Imagine, for a moment, the UN removing the citizens of three or four US states and telling Saddam, Iran and Kim Jung Il they were welcome to populate the territories as they see fit.
Think ya might be pissed, even 50 years later? Would you shrug your shoulders and say “oh, well” and just forget about it all? Or might you grow to despise the power that continued ally with them and make their continued occupation possible?
Get this: I despise the Islamic whack jobs over there screaming about the Great Satan, etc. But I understand why they are unhappy.
Sep 15, 2007 - 1:34 pm 18. Gliker:Yes John,
The North Koreans and Iraqis have been settled in Idaho for 5000 years now, as opposed to those pesky Jews who just happened to show up in the Holy Land around 1948.
Listen John, if you don’t want to be accused of ulterior motives for those damn Jews in the Middle East, don’t trot out the arguments of those that do want the death of Israel.
If it’s about money, then ask how much has the rebuilding of Japan and Germany has cost the American Taxpayer… billions upon bilions more than Israel… but that’s not the point is it?
Israel is the point.
Sep 15, 2007 - 2:56 pm 19. P. Ami:John,
The UN never dumped anyone in Israel. The UN did not establish Israel. The UN recognized a nation already created by people on the ground. Jews had been living there for centuries and by the 1930’s a large number of Jews had moved there, on their own or with funds gathered by Zionist agencies. These people had established courts, defense, newspapers, theatres, health care, roads and many other systems that are the hallmarks of national life. Not a single Jew was placed in Israel by the UN nor was a single Arab thrown out by it either. Jews where either born in Israel or came by the aid of other Jews. Jews and Arabs, mostly Arabs, moved what Muslims left Israel. All the UN did was recognize that it happened.
What exactly qualifies the Jew as the Arab’s age-old nemesis? Arab hate towards the Jew is a relatively new phenomenon. It is based on the fact that Israel did carve itself out of lands once held by Arabs, who took that land from Greco-Romans, who had taken the land from Jews.
The point is that we do not need to, “wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?”, because those facts you mention are false.
Anybody can be disgruntled for any number of reasons. The issue is how you express this dissatisfaction and why the Arabs would rather rant, destroy and kill then to accept that Israel exists. You may despise the Islamic whack jobs, sir, but you do not understand why they are unhappy. They are unhappy because rather then be partners they want to be overlords. The irrationality that frames the W&M Papers is closely related to the hatred of Great Satan and the frittering away of American wealth to China. It is the irrational scream which overwhelms the rational whispers of our good and sensible conscience.
Sep 15, 2007 - 4:58 pm 20. venividivici:John,
Everyone needs to wrap their brains around this oft-forgotten fact: The UN came in, threw a people out of its nation and handed it to their age-old nemesis. In light of that fact, can you understand why there might be a few disgruntled parties in the area?
Arab spin is now “fact”?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=foundation+state+israel
I love this part:
At this point the situation was quite fluid and political arrangements that would satisfy all parties might have been worked out if all had the far-sightedness and the sensitivities required. But apparently the Zionists of that time lacked an understanding of the national aspirations of the Arabs, and the Arabs themselves, lacking political experience, resorted more to force than to the more difficult task of convincing world opinion of their case.
If the Arab case against the foundation of Israel was so strong, why couldn’t they convince the world of its justice? Must have been the Jewish lobby, right? The Palestinian grievance machine may convince simpletons, but I remain unmoved by the alleged injustices they lament.
Quite frankly, I’m glad Israel has nukes. And I do hope they’re going to use the Samson Option, if necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Sep 15, 2007 - 5:07 pm 21. patagonianplato:The question of whether or not one believes that U.S. support for Israel is the focus of its foreign policy and therefore the cause of the world’s hatred of America, or whether the Israeli lobby is all powerful, must receive a response. I believe that such beliefs are rubbish. But, I am not certain if the peddlers of such nonsense are anti-Jewish/Israel, or if they are profoundly ignorant, or if they are just delusional.
However, in a certain sense, this question is irrelevant.
The question that must be asked is, “If Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of Israel and the great Satan?”
In order to answer this question, one must pose another question.
“Is there a doctrinal reason, with a basis in Islamic texts, which could motivate such a fervent desire?”
If a person has committed any time to Islamic studies, and I do not mean the Armstrong/Esposito version, this individual will be able to answer the second question quite easily. Unfortunately, precious few have done this.
However, only a clear mind and common sense are required to answer the first question.
Unfortunately far too many – such as the authors of this ridiculous book – lack these qualities.
Sep 16, 2007 - 7:02 am 22. patagonianplato:I apologize for my morning fog. The question should obviously read,
The question that must be asked is, “If the State of Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of the Jews and the great Satan?”
Sep 16, 2007 - 8:03 am 23. Noga:M&W are assaulting Israel on two fronts: One, that there is no pragmatic interest for US to support it; two, that there is no moral basis for supporting Israel.
That is, even if there was some benefit to the US in supporting Israel, it is undone by the absence of moral justification. They are actually covering all the bases in presenting their case for cutting Israel loose.
I find their second argument much more egregious and dangerous than the first. Because in order to make a moral case, they resort to selectivity, lacunae and distortions in pesenting Israel’s conflict vis a vis the Arabs.
This is unconscionable. As Anthony Julius says: “it is written about Jews, but with a cold-heartedness that cannot altogether be attributed to scholarly objectivity. Jewish pain, Jewish suffering, does not resonate with Mearsheimer and Walt. And in the book’s preface, the authors describe their experiences in writing the paper that preceded the book in language that comes too close to the antisemitic trope of Jewish power over the media.”
As Plato above puts the question: “The question that must be asked is, “If the State of Israel did not exist, would the mullahs in Iran still want to rid the world of the Jews and the great Satan?” I think the answer from M&W would be: Israel is an obstacle for American easy schmoozing with the ayatollahs and the oiled Arab countries. Therefore, it is better for America if Israel did not exist. However, since they cannot claim that calculated interest trumps humanitarianism, they then go on to cut the humanitarian solicitude that one people owes another which is under threat of annihilation. They tell the people of conscience: Your solicitude is unwarranted for this is a bad, evil, wicked country. No tears or compunction should be extended to them.
If you read history, you will find that any great genocide, massacre or atrocity was preceded by a period of intense persuasion of this kind. It is meant to harden people’s hearts from considering the terrible consequences of their own indifference or complicity, to neutralize the voice of man-to-man compassion.
Sep 16, 2007 - 9:32 am 24. Julian Morrison:I think the lefties might be right – the USA might have had wonderful diplomatic relations with the middle east. And in that alternate universe, the left would hold up the desertion of the Jews as a proof of fascism (with echoes of Hitler), and would quite rightly castigate the USA for getting into bed with Arab tyrants. They would still be saying “it’s all about the oil”.
Sep 16, 2007 - 3:07 pm 25. Elle:The article makes some important points about Saudi Arabia and Iran. However it does so in the context of a lot of intellectual theory and historical analysis. Many people will run out of patience before they complete the article.
Sep 16, 2007 - 5:43 pmI am waiting for a piece that people will read and understand, including the effect of virtually unlimited Arab oil money on US business, immigration policy, foreign policy, and politicians at every level. When people understand
this element as well as the goal of world conquest inherent in Islam they will understand the stupidity of the Walt/Mearsheimer book.
We need layman’s language, not intellectual speak, if we are to combat the anti-semitic smear.