Fanning the flames

This week, political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt will fan the growing debate over Washington’s Israel policy.

The professors are embarking on a tour to promote their new book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, which will be published on Tuesday.  The study expands on a an article that originally appeared in the London Review of Books last year, which argued that the lobbying efforts of several prominent US organisations have inhibited political debate on US Israel policy.  They also claimed the existence of an unhealthy consensus on US policy towards Israel. These observations divided the academic community, and produced accusations of anti-Semitism—but they may yet prepare the ground for a more constructive policy debate.

The first part of the Mearsheimer-Walt argument is true.  Since the Reagan administration, both major US political parties have been united in their support for Israeli policy, despite the deplorable conditions in the Palestinian territories.  This perspective strengthened in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the administration conflated the US ‘war on terror’ against al-Qaida with the long-term Israeli struggle against Palestinian terrorism.  There is very little serious discussion among high-level US policymakers about the utility of US aid to Israel—which has a booming economy.  For example, Washington on August 16 signed an agreement providing 30 billion dollars in military aid to Israel over the next 10 years—including an unusual clause allowing Israel to spend 26.3% of the funds on products from its domestic arms industry.  The bill is expected to sail through Congress. 

The second element of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis is more difficult to prove.  In the absence of organised opposition, influential lobby groups such as the Cuban American National Foundation can shape congressional debate, even in cases when polls indicate that the majority of the public favours a different approach.  Powerful organisations, such as the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) clearly work hard to perpetuate the status quo in US-Israel policy—and attract exceptionally strong backing in Congress and within the executive branch.  However, it is conceivable that the current policy consensus would exist irrespective of AIPAC’s efforts.

Return of the ‘realists’

Fundamentally, Mearsheimer and Walt’s ambitions are modest: to provoke a reassessment of US-Israeli relations, and push Israel rapidly towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state outside its pre-1967 borders.  This is the avowed objective of both the Bush administration and the Israeli government.  However, in forcefully making their case and identifying the source of resistance to change, they touch two sensitive US political shibboleths:

• Jewish integration into US society during the 20th century is an extraordinary success story; intermarriage between Jews and other groups has reached very high levels.  Yet as Peter Novick and other scholars have demonstrated, this success has begun to threaten the status of US Jews as a distinct ethnic/religious community.  Support for Israel—which sometimes consists of uncritical acceptance of Israeli government policy—has helped maintain a distinct group identity.
• As ‘realist’ theorists (those who emphasise state power and balance-of-power politics in foreign affairs), Mearsheimer and Walt are unmoved by those who characterise Israel as a plucky little democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships.  Realists are very much against the broader grain of US foreign policy, in that they believe state ‘interests’ and international order should be key objectives, and give little weight to democratic values.

By touching on ethnic identity—a ‘live wire’ in US politics—and questioning whether spreading ‘democratic values’ in the Middle East should have priority over regional stability, Mearsheimer and Walt have ignited a uniquely US controversy.  (Many of their ideas are seen as conventional wisdom in Europe and elsewhere.)  But they may have the wind at their backs.  Following the fiasco created by the US effort to build Iraqi democracy, realist thinkers are gaining a hearing in Washington for the first time since the 1970s.

Overhauling US policy towards Israel, or Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, is very unlikely before 2009, and improbable over the medium-term.  Nevertheless, the realist duo may sow the seeds for an eventual policy reassessment this week.