John Mearsheimer Speaks on Israel Lobby
Apr. 8, 2008 | By Jake Robert Nelson, DSJ Opinions Editor
John Mearsheimer, commonly seen as one of the foremost thinkers in modern
international
relations theory, presented on Monday a lecture entitled “The Israel Lobby
and U.S. Middle East
Policy" to a packed University Center Commonwealth Auditorium.
In the lecture, which coincided with the recently published and
controversial book of the same
name written by Mearsheimer and fellow IR theorist Stephen Walt,
Mearsheimer discussed the
considerable influence exerted by the Israel Lobby on American foreign
policy.
The Anti-Defamation League, an interest group devoted to the cessation of
anti-Semitism, said
in a 2007 press release, “Jew hatred lives on in speeches by Iranian
President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad [and] in the writings of the professors John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt.”
Mike Tierney and Sue Peterson, directors of the College’s Institute for
the Theory and Practice
of International Relations (TRIP), the group that brought Mearsheimer to
campus, introduced the
speaker. Mearsheimer was described as a “public intellectual,” who was not
only a theorist but
also a New York Times bestselling author with accessible publications in
journals like The
Atlantic Monthly.
Mearsheimer began by laying out his three overarching points. First, he
said that the Israel
Lobby is a powerful interest in the U.S. that shapes policy choices.
Second, that most of the
policies pursued by the lobby are not in the interest of the United States
or Israel. Finally,
that the U.S. should treat Israel as it would treat any other democracy.
The Israel Lobby, as defined by Mearsheimer, is a “loose coalition of
individuals and groups
who work openly to influence United States foreign policy in a pro-Israel
direction.” He listed
some representative groups: the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), some think tanks and media outlets like the
Wall Street Journal.
The Lobby, he said, exercises its power by “exerting influence inside the
beltway” and “shaping
public discourse and opinions.” Both instances make it extremely difficult
to oppose the status
quo regarding Israel policy. He cited the role of AIPAC in steering
campaign contributions to
pro-Israel candidates and of pro-Israel advertisers who choose not to
sup****t dissenting media
outlets.
He also defined the specifics of American aid to Israel. Although Israel
has the 29th highest
per capita income, he said, the United States gives $500 per Israeli
citizen in aid, as well as
consistent diplomatic backing. He cited the fact that the U.S. has blocked
over 40 United
Nations Security Council resolutions that would change policy on Israel,
more vetoes than
exercised by any of the four other permanent members.
This aid, he explained, is given unconditionally and constantly. The
strategic location of
Israel, a moral or socio-cultural tie to Israel and overwhelming American
public sup****t are
the reasons given for the sup****t. Mearsheimer, however, negates each of
these points.
Mearsheimer’s three main points, which form the backbone of the argument
in his recent book,
altogether advocate for a change in U.S. foreign policy with Israel.
He discussed the lack of cohesion in the Lobby’s pro-Israel positions with
American or Israeli
national interests. Although every president since 1967 has opposed the
building of settlements
on Palestinian territory, no administration has put pressure on the
government of Israel and
some have even defended Israel in the United Nations.
Mearsheimer also said that the presence of the U.S. in Israel has been a
major contributing
factor in creating global anti-American sentiment and the rise of
terrorism, as “anger towards
the United States fuels terrorism.”
He listed three possible future outcomes for the state of Israel: a
democratic bi-national
state, an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or a South Africa-esque
apartheid system. The last,
he says, is the most probable outcome, but Israel can only sup****t such a
system for a limited
amount of time before collapsing.
His final point -- essentially a policy suggestion -- was that the U.S.
should end its special
relation****p with Israel. He advocated that the United States oppose
Israeli policy choices
that are contrary to its national interests.
“The United states,” he said, “should act as an honest broker, making
even-handed policies.”
He insisted that this did not imply making anti-Israel policy and that the
United States should
come to the aid of Israel when it is in trouble.
The hour-long lecture commemorates an unofficial start to Palestinian
Awareness Week. While the
lecture was not a planned part of the week’s activities -- which include
more lectures, a film
screening and a panel discussion, all sponsored by Students for Justice in
Palestine -- it is a
first step towards a dialogue about Israel and Palestine on campus.
|
