Exposé on Jewish role in US policy is disowned

#1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2110150,00.html

By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

HARVARD UNIVERSITY is distancing itself from a report by one of its senior academics that accuses the Jewish lobby in America of subverting US foreign policy in Israel’s interest.

After a furious outcry from prominent American Jews, Harvard has removed its logo from the study and disowned any responsibility for the views put forward in the working paper, released two weeks ago.
Seems pretty spot on to me, have a read:


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
 
#2
Taz_786 said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2110150,00.html

By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor

HARVARD UNIVERSITY is distancing itself from a report by one of its senior academics that accuses the Jewish lobby in America of subverting US foreign policy in Israel’s interest.

After a furious outcry from prominent American Jews, Harvard has removed its logo from the study and disowned any responsibility for the views put forward in the working paper, released two weeks ago.
Seems pretty spot on to me, have a read:


http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
It's amazing the power of money :wink:
 
#3
Its not money its the fact that they run the media...........now where's my tin-foil hat?...aaw - it was on my head the whole time!
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
Thank God somebody in the US has had the balls to write this...the fact that one of the two authors is himself jewish means that the usual neo-Nazi, anti Semitic catcalls will be muted....this paragraph from the Harvard paper sums it up:

Instead, the 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.

Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The authors:

John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.


Well done...be interesting to see how many of the mainstream journals pick this up or run with it......over to Minty !

Lee Shaver
 
#5
Neither blackhawks or F-16's are "Top drawer weaponry", both systems have been sold to other nations (F-16's to Jordan, Egypt, UAE to mention a few arab nations), Blackhawks to a number of nations including China (a small number sold to them in the 80's). If the authors were educated people they may have mentioned the Arrow and Arrow II, or THEL/MTHEL US/Israeli projects, but then they are defensive systems which may not have suited the purpose of the authors.

Which lobby has more money (and therefore influence), the Jewish lobby or the Oil lobby?

If the summary is any indication the report is merely another round of shite throwing by the lunatic left, and offers no accurate insight into US/Israeli politics other than weak implications of the old ZOG "Jooos control the world!" cry.

The authors most definitely need to make themselves a pair of tin foil hats.
 
#6
Neither blackhawks or F-16's are "Top drawer weaponry",
True they're not now but they once were. That hardly proves the report is wrong.
 
#7
NotyouAgain said:
....The authors most definitely need to make themselves a pair of tin foil hats.
I wont start to convince some of you that there is no world conspiracy by Jews to have world domination, just not worth the effort. However, the way they have written their report is slanted to give a certain impression. Some of their key statements are incorrect or overtly wrong e.g. David v Goliath & War of Independence.

The fact that one of the authors may be Jewish does not mean that he does not have an agenda so to speak. It is often joked about that the worst anti-Semites are Jews themselves.
 
#8
NotyouAgain said:
If the summary is any indication the report is merely another round of shite throwing by the lunatic left, and offers no accurate insight into US/Israeli politics other than weak implications of the old ZOG "Jooos control the world!" cry.

The authors most definitely need to make themselves a pair of tin foil hats.
Utter pants, my friend.

I know both these men, and they are anything but members of the "Lunatic Left". They are both hardcore Realists, both are at the very top of the totem pole in their field of study. Mearsheimer especially was a figure scorn for many lefties within the discipline of international relations because of his emphasis that the only only thing that matters in the international system is hard power. That the report has come from these guys has sent a minor earthquake through the academic community.


Having said that, both he and Walt opposed the foray into Iraq from the word go because it was simply not in US interests (in terms of the pursuit and acquisition of power) to do so. Their opposition was not based on any legal, internationalist or humanitarian grounds. They just figured that it would bog down American forces, sap their ability to engage elsewhere and deal with more pressing concerns.
 
#9
Arik said:
NotyouAgain said:
....The authors most definitely need to make themselves a pair of tin foil hats.
I wont start to convince some of you that there is no world conspiracy by Jews to have world domination, just not worth the effort. However, the way they have written their report is slanted to give a certain impression. Some of their key statements are incorrect or overtly wrong e.g. David v Goliath & War of Independence.

The fact that one of the authors may be Jewish does not mean that he does not have an agenda so to speak. It is often joked about that the worst anti-Semites are Jews themselves.
Arik,
I have two had friends who have been press and public affairs officers for the Israeli Consulate General in Los Angeles. They make no excuse or apology for the agenda they consistently try to push and the means they use to achieve it. In fact, I have a lot of Jewish-American friends, because we agree on most things, but to try and engage them on Middle eastern politics is like flipping a switch. With only one or two exceptions they become absolutely rabid and any kind of capacity for critical thinking (which they can happily apply to other issues and ideas) disappears in an instant.

A lot of the Bush 43 people were helping out Likud before they took office. Scooty Libby even ran an election campaign for Netenyahu.

I presume you've come across and embraced David Horowitz's latest work? :D
 
#10
crabtastic said:
I have two had friends .........They make no excuse or apology for the agenda they consistently try to push and the means they use to achieve it.

.........

I presume you've come across and embraced David Horowitz's latest work? :D
Of course Israel tries to push it's agenda on the USA, each govt. tends to do what it feels is best for it's country and generally America is good for / to Israel. I think that the issue of the work of the article poster is more to do with what is called the 'Jewish lobby' / Jewish role. Personally, I thought this would be called the Israel lobby which is presumably backed by several million Christian Americans who are strong supporters of Israel!!

BTW - Dont know much about Horowitz, personally I dont get too much time to read as I am too busy on the PC. Being too lazy to do a web search - Is he a good author? What does he tend to write about? Can you recommend it?
 
#11
Which lobby has more money (and therefore influence), the Jewish lobby or the Oil lobby?
Hmmmm....a quote from the article:

Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.
Is that not indirectly the same thing? The article was an interesting read and I actually agree with a lot of it (and I'm NOT the tinfoil-tiara type), but the authors failed to convince me that the current administration's desire to protect Israeli interests can be attributed to anything more than long-range financial benefit. (I am not sure what direct proof would be deemed acceptable...maybe a used napkin with the words "Reminder: invade Iraq, get all the oil!!!!" scrawled on it in Bush's handwriting?) I believe they are spot-on about the garden-variety evangelical Christian's feelings about Israel, but I also think this is being quite cynically exploited by the White House.

That being said, it does drive me nuts that one cannot be critical of U.S. policy on Israel without being accused of being an anti-Semite. Many people who are not raving Nazis realize there's a lot to be critical about. (My Jewish friends, who are admittedly all way Reform and not big fans of Orthodox supremacy, feel the same way that I do.)
 
#12
Arik said:
crabtastic said:
I have two had friends .........They make no excuse or apology for the agenda they consistently try to push and the means they use to achieve it.

.........

I presume you've come across and embraced David Horowitz's latest work? :D
Of course Israel tries to push it's agenda on the USA, each govt. tends to do what it feels is best for it's country and generally America is good for / to Israel.
That statement is an a priori supposition and is the very thing that the report is challenging. But the bigger question is, who gets to define the National Interest and what are their motivations behind it?

I think that the issue of the work of the article poster is more to do with what is called the 'Jewish lobby' / Jewish role. Personally, I thought this would be called the Israel lobby which is presumably backed by several million Christian Americans who are strong supporters of Israel!!
That's half the problem. It is very easy for the pro-Israel lobby to smack down criticism of Israel by levying charges of antisemitism. The state of discourse now has reached a point where Jewishlobby and Israel lobby are synonymous. By the way, the Evangelicals still don't like Jews- you still have that whole "you killed Jesus thing" to atone for. It's just that they hate Muslims more and don't like the idea of brown people controlling places like Bethlehem and Jerusalem. (Jesus, as we all know, was a blond-haired, blue-eyed WASP. :wink: )

BTW - Dont know much about Horowitz, personally I dont get too much time to read as I am too busy on the PC. Being too lazy to do a web search - Is he a good author? What does he tend to write about? Can you recommend it?
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0895260034/?tag=armrumser-20

Horowitz is getting absolutely slammed from all sides for this piece of sh1t. Not least because it's horribly researched and written. His basic line of thought is that anyone critical of Israel is damaging America. (My new boss makes the list of 101 most dangerous professors btw.) He'll make a ton of money from it, because it'll be seized on by any reactionary nutcase who needs something with an impressive cover and title to decorate their coffee table.
 
#13
crabtastic said:
.....That's half the problem. It is very easy for the pro-Israel lobby to smack down criticism of Israel by levying charges of antisemitism. The state of discourse now has reached a point where Jewishlobby and Israel lobby are synonymous. ........
On the flip side of the anti-Semitic issue so to speak, are cases where people use Israel as the supposed target or a smoke screen for their own personal prejudices.

The Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby being synonymous is a matter of ignorance. Taking the USA alone, a significant proportion of Jews there dont give 2 hoots about Israel. I would also say that Israel has more non-Jewish supporters througout the world then the 12 million Jews whomake up part of the world's population so Israel lobby and Jewish lobby are not one and the same. Also, secular diaspora Jewry is not as concerned with Israel as it used to be and is more interested in assimilation (e.g. certainly the case in the West).

I will be skipping Horowitz book, I am more of a Sven Hassel type reader :!:
 
#14
Arik said:
crabtastic said:
.....That's half the problem. It is very easy for the pro-Israel lobby to smack down criticism of Israel by levying charges of antisemitism. The state of discourse now has reached a point where Jewishlobby and Israel lobby are synonymous. ........
On the flip side of the anti-Semitic issue so to speak, are cases where people use Israel as the supposed target or a smoke screen for their own personal prejudices.

The Jewish lobby and the Israel lobby being synonymous is a matter of ignorance. Taking the USA alone, a significant proportion of Jews there dont give 2 hoots about Israel.
Really? That flies in the face of everything I've experienced here in LA for the last five years. The key is the manner in which the political idea of the modern-day state of Israel is slaved to the very core of the Jewish identity. Only in extremely rare cases, have I known or met anyone who does not conform to this pattern. This is a very much part of political socialisation for Jewish Americans.
For many, it doesn't even become a matter of considered opinion and it is no overstatement to say that it almost becomes an article of faith. Much as the destruction of Israel has become an article of faith and incorporated into certain parts of "Islamic" teaching.

I'm going to agree with you in part when I say that the level of ignorance about political life in Israel by some Jewish Americans who profess their support for Israel is staggering, but that is not very surprising. As I said before, support for Israel from my Jewish friends is pretty much reflexive, rather than the result of critical thinking and evaluation.
 
#15
crabtastic said:
....Really? That flies in the face of everything I've experienced here in LA for the last five years. The key is the manner in which the political idea of the modern-day state of Israel is slaved to the very core of the Jewish identity. Only in extremely rare cases, have I known or met anyone who does not conform to this pattern. This is a very much part of political socialisation for Jewish Americans.
For many, it doesn't even become a matter of considered opinion and it is no overstatement to say that it almost becomes an article of faith. Much as the destruction of Israel has become an article of faith and incorporated into certain parts of "Islamic" teaching. ......
What you say may be the case of those Jews that you have met in L.A. But for each one of them there are plenty who fall off the radar scope and assimilate or really dont give a stuff about Israel / their religion / their culture, etc.
The other point to make here is you describe the manner in which the political idea of the modern-day state of Israel is slaved to the very core of the Jewish identity is down to religion and not politics as Israel has always been a part of Jewish culture long before Zionism was ever formulated as a political concept. That is due to the religous belief and is oft repeated in millenia old prayers and songs, etc.
 
#16
ASSUMPTION: The USA's long term goal in the Middle East is educated, trading, democracies stretching from Morocco to Pakistan.

PREMISE: Israel would suffer under these conditions. Israel prospers when Middle Eastern countries are fighting one another and lead by blood thirsty despots despised and feared by their neighbours.


Without going into the legality of the war in Iraq or the potential for success, Sadam was Israel's "best friend" in the Middle East. He took the only country that was wealthy enough to threaten Israel and turned it against it Arab and Persian neighbours. He destroyed any hope of Arab unity and so on and so forth.

The last thing Israel wants is a well respected, democratically elected, level headed leader in Iraq. You could say that this is unlikely to happen any time soon but it is American policy and I can't see how its going to benefit Israel.
 
#17
Arik said:
What you say may be the case of those Jews that you have met in L.A. But for each one of them there are plenty who fall off the radar scope and assimilate or really dont give a stuff about Israel / their religion / their culture, etc.
The other point to make here is you describe the manner in which the political idea of the modern-day state of Israel is slaved to the very core of the Jewish identity is down to religion and not politics as Israel has always been a part of Jewish culture long before Zionism was ever formulated as a political concept. That is due to the religous belief and is oft repeated in millenia old prayers and songs, etc.
I appreciate that last point, but I'm arguing that it's easy (certainly politically expedient) to conflate the two ideas. Perhaps that's why it takes such a ready hold.

With regards to the first point- who are the people most likely to vote? Old people in the US aren't really that numerous in terms of the percentage of the population or the amount of money they can muster to fund campaigns etc., but the AARP is a tremendously powerful force in Washington because their members turn out to vote in huge numbers in a country where voter turnout struggles to reach 50%. The point you raise is a good one- most normal people are really interested in little else other than the politics of "me" and in terms of political participation, Jewish Amercians are no different I suppose- but it remains that the Israel question still tends to be a hot-button issue even for them. I say that the people who are active are very vocal, very well organised and very well funded. Hence they have a political clout that is disproportionate to their numbers. That's the nature of poltics in the US. At the national level, the "Jewish" vote is critical in place like California (500,000 in LA alone) New York (1.7 Million in NYC) and Florida (around 500,000 in Miami). Big States. Lots of electoral college votes to be had.
 
#18
The report is certainly ground breaking and hopefully will stir debate but having read the full report, I agree with other who think the paper is some what flawed in certain areas.
Firstly, the emphasis on the Israeli influence on American affairs as laid out in the report can be easily countered by the counter argument that Israel serves American interests. Also on a historical front before the fall of the Shah, Israel was secondary importance, the primary ally as admitted by Kissinger being Iran.
Secondly the report treats, the Israeli lobby in America as a homogeneous alliance, something that it is certainly not, it also under emphasises the role that non-Jews play in the Israeli lobby. There is a spiritual tie to Israel that many Americans have (it may not be a very nice one) but eschatology aside, many Americans see in Israel a mirror image of themselves, they also see a strong strategic partner.
The report is brave and coming from such a main stream source, the publication has to be welcomed but I have to go with critics like Massad who feel that certain flaws in the report will limit its actual impact
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#19
my initial post kinda missed out on the fact that the Harvard paper was being precis'd in ...ahem...The Times. :oops:

Nonetheless it will be instructive to see which 'serious' commentators in UK pick up on it....and which are unable to do because they fear to alienate either owners or readership.....

My betting is on Greville Janner on the Today programme fairly soon ....


Le Chevre
 
#20
Firstly, the emphasis on the Israeli influence on American affairs as laid out in the report can be easily countered by the counter argument that Israel serves American interests
How exactly?
 

Latest Threads

Top