Do Israel's Interests Have Undue Influence on US Foreign Policy? (esp re NeoCons)

Great Debates
1

Inspired by this Pit thread.

Here’s an interesting article that covers quite a bit of ground on this issue. Granted, it doesn’t cover the ground thoroughly, but it is a nice survey.

Choice excerpts from the hard to find MtP transcript:
’Meet the Press’ – February 23, 2003

Choice excerpts from the Arnaud de Borchgrave article:

Choice excerpts from the WaPo’s Bob Kaiser article:

JINSA members have included such NeoCon notables as, The Hon. Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Hon. R. James Woolsey, Jr., Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and Hon. John Bolton.

Richard N. Perle, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser are also members of the Hudson Institute’s Board of Trustees.

And, of course, the esteemed AEI and PNAC share members with a number of the aforementioned folks. But, that goes almost w/o saying.

So the question is, do Israel’s interests have undue influence on American foreign policy via various NeoCons re the ME?

2

To boldly go where nobody in his right mind…

A brave question, friend Simon, and a worthy one, and one certain to lead you into the “wilderness of mirrors”. But why even limit it to the neo-cons?

For years now, American has been Israel’s best friend. Whether this loyalty is returned in kind and degree, is another question all together.

It is entirely natural for us to admire Israel: its dogged determination, its resistance against odds, our sympathy for the tragedy of its foundation. With eyes half-averted, we admire the ruthless efficiency of its intelligence services, even as we wonder how much of our own intelligence has been manipulated and “played” to Israel’s advantage.

Would Isreal be willing to manipulate American foreign policy to her advantage, without considering the ultimate value to the US? Of course. Who wouldn’t? Would she be willing to manipulate intelligence, media, and politicians for her own ends? Without a doubt.

Then the question becomes: are the neo-cons peculiarly or especially friendly to Israel? No, not really. Aside from the barking mad wing of the religious right, persons loony enough to actively foment Armageddon, the sympathy for Israel is pervasive, no more left than right (overlooking, or course, the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe…neo-Nazis, etc.).

Nor would I place any special weight on the religious heritage of the neo-cons involved. The spectrum of political persuasion amongst people you could reasonably call “Jewish” is by no means limited to any “wing”. Equally, quite a few of the “neo-cons” are perfectly ordinary white-bread Christians: Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, your better class of Baptist: the kind I like to refer to in general as the Church of Christ, Accountant.

To sum: does Isreal have a troubling degree of influence on American politics and policies? Goodness gracious, yes! Is this primarily, or even largely, due to the influence of any particular branch of American political thought? Heavens to Betsy, no!

3

Ya know, I’m pro-Israel and everything, and I fail to see how American foreign policy could ever be coopted by intelligence by another country, but I’m with elucidator. This we can’t blame on the Israelis. Sure, Feith and Perle and the others are called Likudniks for a reason. They just accept that the Likud view is the “right” plan of action, not only for Israeli interests but for American ones as well. I believe that after 9/11, it has seemed to them that the fates of the two countries are more tightly interwoven then ever before. Bringing a lasting peace to the Middle East not by appeasement of despots but rather by complete reboot of the whole region and installation of democratic regimes sure sounds like a good ideal for the US, especially when two of those despotic regimes (Egypt and Saudi) were the source of the hijackers on 9/11. The only easy way to start on this was using military means. Sure, they could have gone after NGOs and used economic and political cues to force free elections and a more independent press. But when the Defense Department, the US military machine, and the ear of the President get dealt to you, the proverb of if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail applies. The place of convenience to begin was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. We had justifiable gripes (kind of), he was certainly a despot, and he was a threat to the region (kind of). Lost in translation somewhere was that he wasn’t one of the despots that had bred the Islamic terror that had bit the US.

We are in a peculiar time in this country. We have a leader who has shown little inate sense of how the world works. Most of the time, we are left with the reassurance that his advisors are all good. The problem is when the advisors disagree. We had an epic battle under wraps for the majority of the last two years: Colin Powell and State versus Defense and the Rumsfeldians and the neocons. The neocons won this round – Rumsfeld had his ideas of how the world should work and how America should respond after 9/11, and these happily coincided with the neocons views in Iraq. They beat Colin Powell’s views, and everything that Bush promised during the election (the Powell doctrine, Powell’s reluctance to get involved in wars without clear exit strategies, a realpolitik avoidance of nation building) was defenstrated.

We had alternate plans of actions dictated. It is just that when Rumsfeld and Rice and Feith and Perle and all the rest agreed, they drowned out the dissenters. Israel is only a happy coincidence and isn’t significantly more secure than when we started this mess.

4

Considering how much the US is accused of doing things mainly for money, it’s good to be accused of doing things on principle, such as when we stick up for Israel or Taiwan.

5

What elucidator said. Israel has had a disproportionate influence on US policy for quite some time now, even before Paul Wolfowitz hit puberty. Then again, it’s not the only socio-political group to have an undue influence on American foreign policy – I am still amazed at how much disproportinate influence the Cuban refugees in Florida have over American policy vis-a-vis Cuba.

And while I’m sympathetic to Israel’s situation, I will stand up and say that I think we’ve been playing favorites with them for too long. IMO, part of the reason there hasn’t been a workable Israel/Palestinean peace plan for so long is partially because the US is unwilling or unable to distance itself a bit more from Israel and treat both sides more equally.

6

How many political persuasions can make these statements:

…support for Israel – a key tenet of neoconservatism…

…Commentary magazine, the neocon bible. [the monthly of the American Jewish Committee]

?

7

The principle of yielding to undue Israeli influence? You dont make sense.

8

On principle, they do things mainly for money!

9

Maybe adaher assumes that the noble pols who’ve been accused of giving Israel’s interests undue unfluence in US’s foreign policy did so w/o a thought of personal gain. That is, they gave this undue unfluence because its prima facie “the right thing to do.”

How 'bout it adaher? What’re you getting at?

10

Interesting developments abound. Note, with interest, Mr. Josh Marshalls Talking Points Memo (without which, no citizen can hope to be adequately informed…)

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

He points out recent columns by Joel Mowbray and David Brooks that valiantly protect the “neo-cons” from the insidious attacks of anti-semites. I was, myself, taken aback by Mr. Brooks column, having seen him previously as one of the few respectable voices on the right. He had always played clean, in my recollection. I was especially taken by his humanity and intelligence in approaching the issue of “gay marriage”. (See his column in the NY Times)

A very disappointing display of media whorishness. One can only hope Mr. Brooks has contrition and a speedy recovery.

Read 'em and weep.

11

Too rich, too rich, LOL.
from

con is short for “conservative” and neo is short for "Jewish"
If you ever read a sentence that starts with “Neocons believe,” there is a 99.44 percent chance everything else in that sentence will be untrue.

He should explain these to Mr. Boot & Mr. Kristol.

**All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently. **

I wonder what exactly he’s referring to.

**The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it’s much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques.
You can ignore inconvenient facts so rigorously that your picture of the world is one big distortion.
You can live…unburdened by ambiguity.
**

This is, more or less what’s supposedly going on in the Bush Admin.

12

I’m not sure why you are amazed at that. When you have a minority group that really, really cares about something that’s not really important to the rest of the country, they usually get their way. They who make the most noise win, generally.

The Cuba situation would be over if there was another group that really, really cared about ending the embargo. And then constantly lobbied for that and threw their support behind legislators that saw it that way. But there isn’t. There’s a smattering of groups, but they’re not nearly loud enough or large enough to make a difference.

Same with Israel. Although, that’s also a case of inertia. We support Israel because we have been supporting Israel for about 30 years now and they haven’t really done anything to betray that. Plus, you have several groups that really want to support Israel for whatever reason - plus, the groups that want to end Israeli support aren’t nearly as organized or loud.

Incidentally, the sugar protections are the same way. When I was working in Congress the sugar lobbyists would be there every week to drop off reports, materials, etc. showing why the protections were good and should be kept. Maybe once a month or two months, they’d meet with staff and give a detailed presentation with charts and all sorts other fun stuff. We never heard from anyone that wanted to end them. That’s largely a reason why they get kept on. The sugar lobbyists put in the effort and no one puts in the effort to oppose them.

13

Mowbray’s column title kind of says a lot about the column itself:
“General Zinni, what a Ninny”

Ad hominem for an argument before the column even begins.
The whole, “Technically, the former head of the Central Command in the Middle East didn’t say ‘Jews,’” is telling as well.
Btw, it sparked the Pit thread opened by Reeder that inspired this thread.

To paraphrase SimonX:

Based on my readings so far, I’ve found a plethora of denials of the “Jewishness” of neoconservatism and a dearth of actual accusations.
These denials are couched in terms of accusations of antisemitism. They’re also based on the idea that even though assertions as to the “Jewishness” of neoconservatism is nowhere in the works referenced, it’s what the authors of these works “really meant.”
For example Max Boot’s, "it sometimes sounds as if what they really mean is “Jewish conservative.” (Maybe this an example of Strausian extrapolation of the esoteric meanings of texts :wink: ? )

It’s important to note that these accuser/deniers like Mr. Mowbray, Mr. Brooks and Mr. Boot must engage in some rhetorical gymnastics to make their case not about what was actually said, but about what they think someone else “really meant.” Rountchere, in GD, we call this a strawman.

An interesting, topical comment by Josh Marshall:
It’s a conscious cheapening of the charge of anti-Semitism that should be roundly and vociferously criticized.
I’m proud that the SDMB GD is a place where these “legitimate questions concerning the pro-Israel leanings of administration officials” can be discussed in a reasonably rational manner.

14

[semi-OFFtopic]
The surprising thing to me is that my vehement disagreement with the neocons and our current escapades is 90% a disagreement over methods, not objectives. I, too, would like to see the worldwide proliferation of elected democracies with wide-ranging rights for the citizens and checks and balances within the governments and so forth. I’d even go so far as to agree that the nondemocratic countries that are dominated by fundamentalist Islamic nutcase ideology are a specific threat to our way of life, and that therefore these are the places where I’d most like to see democracy gain some toeholds.

I don’t think we’ve done an adequate job of being politically and economically supportive of such trends when they’ve emerged, though, and I don’t think imposing democracy by force is a very reliable method. (Aside from which many of the parties who speak of imposing it seem to have a frighteningly attenuated understanding of “democracy” as evinced by their domestic politics).

[/semiOFF]

15

More reaction to Mowbray