AIPAC works against US interests - JERUSALEM POST - study

[RedOnce]

Study: AIPAC works against US interests

THE JERUSALEM POST - Mar. 19, 2006

A new study, claiming that the pro-Israel lobby in America caused the United States to skew its Middle East policy in favor of Israel, is stirring controversy in the pro and anti-Israel communities in the US. The 81-page report, written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, argues that the pro-Israel lobby in the US managed to convince American lawmakers, officials and US public opinion to support Israel, even though this support runs counter to America's own national interests.

"The overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby,'" the paper writes, adding that while other lobbies have tried to affect US foreign policy, "no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical." The academic paper, whose authors are well-known scholars in the fields of political science and government, sets out to dispute almost every argument of the pro-Israel activists in the US.

It argues that supporting Israel is not in America's best interest and furthermore, that it complicates the US's international stand and its ability to fight terror. "Israel is in fact a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states," the authors write, claiming that "The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around." The paper also argues that the US would not be worried about Iran, Iraq and Syria, if not for its close ties with Israel.


The main claim of the authors is that the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the US is the reason for a biased US foreign policy in the region that favors Israel. They point to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)'s activity in Congress and in the executive branch and talk about how it allegedly "manipulates the media" and "polices academia" in order to make sure the US maintains a pro-Israel approach. The authors add that AIPAC also uses the claim of anti-Semitism, or "the great silencer" as they refer to it, to shut off any criticism of Israel.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395630337&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

Study (PDF): The Isreal Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. That's like conducting a study to say "The sky is blue".

Sadly, too many people will continue to say it's green.

[Bozita]

2. Didn't Cheney speak before an AIPAC function last week?

http://progressive.org/mag_wx031106

-snip-

Cheney was speaking to—of all groups—AIPAC, which has two former high officials awaiting trial for espionage for allegedly giving secrets to Israel. But that didn’t stop Cheney from blessing AIPAC with his presence.

Cheney warned of “meaningful consequences” if Iran “stays on its present course.” He stressed that “the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime.” And he said: “We join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

He followed that with the obligatory bow to the Iranian people, which is the rattle of the snake. Before Bush and Cheney attack any country, they heap praise on the people they are about to kill.

“The people of Iran can be absolutely certain that we respect them, their country, and their long history as a great civilization, and we stand with them,” said Cheney.

-snip-

more...

[HamdenRice]

3. What I don't understand is: why are they so attached to Likud?

I think that moderate support for Israel makes sense, but support for the Labor vision for the region is much more in our interest than the Likud vision. US foreign policy routinely chooses to support particular political parties overseas, and I don't understand why our government is so attached to the party that hurts our interests rather than the party that has a vision of peace, integration and prosperity.

I hate Sharon, but Ehud Barak is kind of one of my heroes.

[Warpy]

7. Exactly, without the appalling Likud policies, Israel would still enjoy

much of the support it had right after the 1967 war.

However, they've had too many years of horrible policy to be considered anyone's friend any more.

I wish there were a full accounting of Franklin's role in Feith's office. We know Feith was not a smart man. Did AIPAC/Israel have an agent making US policy? Is that one of the reasons for the Iraq war?

Nobody blames countries for acting in their own interest. What we have to end now is men within our own government who are acting not in our country's interest, but in another country's interest.

[JohnyCanuck]

4. The greatest crime in the neoconservative universe

Using character smears to prevent foreign policy discussions

SNIP

The greatest crime in the neoconservative universe is to criticize Israeli policy or, worse, discuss and express concern about the influence on American foreign policy of neoconservatives and/or its principal American lobbying group, AIPAC. Since Mearsheimer and Walt have committed this grave sin, it is time for the punishment, which begins -- as it always does for this crime -- with a nice, oozing dose of character smear, courtesy of the likes of Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds, Powerline, and The New York Sun (The Weekly Standard can't be far behind).

The New York Sun kicked off the smearing yesterday with a very lengthy, breathless article entitled “David Duke Claims to be Vindicated by a Harvard Dean.” Apparently, the fact that the utterly inconsequential David Duke expressed support for some of Mearsheimer and Walt's conclusions is highly newsworthy -- meriting an endless article in The New York Sun -- because, well . . . isn't obvious why? Because Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, by virtue of the report they issued, are now evil racists who are the equivalent of David Duke. No need to listen to or think about any of the arguments they advance. After all, they're just a couple of thinly disguised KKK members who are motivated by racial hatred, so we should vent some hatred towards them and then ignore everything they say.

Following along with the character smearing script is, first, Alan Dershowitz, who, in the Sun article, calls the report “trash,” says that it could have been written by “some of the less intelligent members of Hamas,” and obligatorily insists that the report “sounds very similar” to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the anti-Semitic tract from the early 20th Century. To make sure there is no confusion about what he means, Dershowitz calls Mearsheimer and Walt “two bigots.” Following along, as always, Instapundit links to The New York Sun article and adds his own character smear:

YALE HAS ITS TALIBAN, HARVARD HAS DAVID DUKE:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/03/21/usingCharacterSmearsToPreventForeignPolicyDiscussions.html

[kenny blankenship]

5. I guess I just don't see it

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tatertop]

8. Do you think AIPAC is Hammas on steroids?

[Boojatta]

9. Are self-declared terrorists describing their own motives clearly?

"The United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel (...)" The paper also argues that the US would not be worried about Iran, Iraq and Syria, if not for its close ties with Israel.

If anti-choice activists were to begin not just shooting individual doctors, but launching terror attacks on randomly chosen hospitals, then would we be able to conclude that "the United States has a hospital terrorism problem in good part because it permits abortion"?

[cantstandbush]

10. The Likud laughs at the US behind our backs. n/t

[RazzleDazzle]

11. Ah, nice to have some solid support for what we already knew

Isn't it?

[RedOnce]

12. Kennedy School of Government (KSG) Seeks Distance from Paper

Controversial paper on “Israel Lobby” will not display KSG logo or series

The Harvard Crimson, Inc.
Published On Friday, March 24, 2006
By PARAS D. BHAYANI
Crimson Staff Writer

The Kennedy School of Government (KSG) removed its logo from a controversial paper published last week by Academic Dean Stephen M. Walt and the University of Chicago’s John J. Mearsheimer. A disclaimer stating that the views expressed belong only to the authors was also made more prominent on the working paper’s cover.

...the authors have drawn heated criticism from many academics, including Harvard’s Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz and longtime Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who is also the editor-in-chief of The New Republic.

Usually, papers like Walt and Mearsheimer’s, which is part of the faculty working paper series and available on the KSG’s website, display the school’s logo, the series name, and a standard disclaimer stating that the views expressed may not reflect those of the KSG or Harvard.

Yesterday’s issue of The New York Sun reported that an “observer” familiar with Harvard said that the University had received calls from “pro-Israel donors” concerned about the KSG paper. One of the calls, the source told The Sun, was from Robert Belfer, a former Enron director...

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512378