Harvard Researchgroup: Too Much Zionist Influence on the US-Goverment

Great Debates
1

An important new research paper by two distinguished professors, entitled “The Israel Lobby And U.S. Foreign Policy,” was just published by Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. [1] The paper’s three main conclusions are that:

(1) the pro-Israel lobby inside the U.S. has managed to convince American lawmakers, officials, and U.S. public opinion to support Israel “no matter what,” even though this support runs counter to America’s own national interests;

(2) pro-Israel officials inside the Bush administration - namely, neocons Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - were behind the push for war with Iraq, and pro-Israel lobbying groups were a driving force in encouraging the Bu****es to invade Iraq; and

(3) the pro-Israel lobby actively suppresses American public debate about U.S. Middle East policy by disingenuously accusing everyone who disagrees with their pro-Israel positions of being “anti-Semitic.”

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
I couldn’t agree more

2

Recent GD thread on same topic: The Israel Lobby - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

Personally, I fail to see how Israel is any safer now than it was when Hussein was running Iraq. OTOH, I can see how Israelis and Israel supporters might have imagined it somehow would be safer.

3

Wait, I thought we attacked Saddam because he was going to sell oil in Euros?

Make up your mind which conspiracy to believe.

4

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Wait, I thought we attacked Saddam because he was going to sell oil in Euros?

Make up your mind which conspiracy to believe.
[/QUOTE]
Why pick one?

We attacked Saddam because the Israelis were upset that Saddam was going to sell oil in Euros.

And if you have a problem with that, you’re obviously a pro-European, anti-Semitic terrorist freedom-hater.

5

[QUOTE=Minotaurus]
(1) the pro-Israel lobby inside the U.S. has managed to convince American lawmakers, officials, and U.S. public opinion to support Israel “no matter what,” even though this support runs counter to America’s own national interests;
[/quote]

Wait… a lobby group managed to convince American lawmakers of something?! I’m shocked I tell you. Shocked.

[QUOTE=Minotaurus]
(2) pro-Israel officials inside the Bush administration - namely, neocons Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - were behind the push for war with Iraq, and pro-Israel lobbying groups were a driving force in encouraging the Bu****es to invade Iraq; and
[/quote]

And the president surrounded himself with advisors that supported his agenda?!

[QUOTE=Minotaurus]
(3) the pro-Israel lobby actively suppresses American public debate about U.S. Middle East policy by disingenuously accusing everyone who disagrees with their pro-Israel positions of being “anti-Semitic.”
[/quote]

Given that much of the anti-Israeli rhetoric centers around the legitimacy of Israel and the dismantling of the state (by it’s enemies), it’s hard not to call that anti-Semitic.

[QUOTE=Minotaurus]
I couldn’t agree more
[/QUOTE]

What are you agreeing with? That there is a strong pro-Israel lobby and that the US is (suspiciously) sympathetic to it’s claims? Do you really believe that US-Arab relations would be better today if it were not for Israel’s existance? You think Islamic fundamentalists harbour a secret love for Christian nations vs. the vitriol they reserve for a jewish state?

6

[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
What are you agreeing with? That there is a strong pro-Israel lobby and that the US is (suspiciously) sympathetic to it’s claims?
[/QUOTE]
How about, we should look out for our interests first, and we shouldn’t fight Israel’s battles for it ? How about, we shouldn’t wink at bad behavior by Israel because it has a lot of Jews ? That’s just as silly as condemning them because they have lots of Jews.

7

[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
.Given that much of the anti-Israeli rhetoric centers around the legitimacy of Israel and the dismantling of the state (by it’s enemies), it’s hard not to call that anti-Semitic.
[/QUOTE]

:dubious: I beg your pardon. Hating the state of Israel, even to the point of wishing for its destruction, is not the same as hating the Jewish peope.

8

[QUOTE=Minotaurus]
Bu****es
[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry. I don’t know what that word is. Maybe you should use actual letters to spell words if you expect a serious debate.

9

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
How about, we should look out for our interests first, and we shouldn’t fight Israel’s battles for it ? How about, we shouldn’t wink at bad behavior by Israel because it has a lot of Jews ? That’s just as silly as condemning them because they have lots of Jews.
[/QUOTE]

Israel has shown a pretty good track record of fighting it’s own battles.

Multiple US administrations since 1948 seem to feel that their interests coincide with that of Israel. I suspect that the bad behaviour of Israel is seen not quite as bad as the destruction of Israel by said administrations. Perhaps the US simply chooses the lesser of the two evils?

10

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: I beg your pardon. Hating the state of Israel, even to the point of wishing for its destruction, is not the same as hating the Jewish peope.
[/QUOTE]

I believe the neighbouring Arab states traditionally called for the pushing or Jews into the sea not Isra-ailies.

11

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
:dubious: I beg your pardon. Hating the state of Israel, even to the point of wishing for its destruction, is not the same as hating the Jewish peope.
[/QUOTE]
No, it is not the same. On the other hand, it does show a lack of understanding what the state of Israel means to the Jewish people. It also shows a lack of compassion towards a people who have been persecuted throughout the ages with no one to turn to, and who now at least have someplace to go in the event that the entire world turns their back on them, as has happened so many times in the past.

We “fight their battles” because they are a fellow Democracy and because we are allies with them in a part of the world where we have precious few.

12

How about if you hate the state of Japan, or Germany, or Poland, or Russia, or China, or France, or Ireland? How can you hate an entire country without also hating the inhabitants of that country?

That’s pretty pathetic.

Why is it that you people hate the existance of the state of Israel so much, yet you can’t bother to muster up a “meh” over Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Byelorus?

13

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
How about if you hate the state of Japan, or Germany, or Poland, or Russia, or China, or France, or Ireland? How can you hate an entire country without also hating the inhabitants of that country?

That’s pretty pathetic.
[/quote]

:dubious: That’s pretty nonsensical. To the Palestinians and to Israel’s neighbors, there are reasons (good or bad) to hate it that would not apply at all to Jews living outside the MENA. In fact, if Israel had never been founded, you would be hard pressed to find an Arab anywhere with a bad word to say for the Jews as a group.

The Japanese are defined as the people of Japan. The Jews are not defined as the people of Israel. (They are defined as “the people Israel” but that’s a very different thing, representing no territorial claims or associations.)

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Why is it that you people hate the existance of the state of Israel so much, yet you can’t bother to muster up a “meh” over Burma, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea, or Byelorus?
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes: And that is an utterly pathetic nonsequitur.

Personally, I do hate the governments of all those states you list but I see no reason why any of them (except for NK) should be destroyed as a state; they just need a better government.

As for Israel – it was a bad idea to found it, IMO, but now it’s a going concern and home to millions of native-born citizens. I see no reason to want it destroyed – that is, I see no reason the Jews should be driven out of it. OTOH, I think total Palestinian independence would be a good thing. And I think a “one-state solution” would be an even better thing even if it would mean the end of Israel as a distinctly Jewish state. (Would a "binational" or "one-state solution" be best for Israel/Palestine? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board) None of that makes me antisemitic in any plausible sense, even if it does make me anti-Zionist by the lights of some.

14

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Recent GD thread on same topic: The Israel Lobby - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

Personally, I fail to see how Israel is any safer now than it was when Hussein was running Iraq. OTOH, I can see how Israelis and Israel supporters might have imagined it somehow would be safer.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t, I tend to think Israeli military commanders and politicians alike regard Saddams containment as something better than random deathsquads and shaky government control.

I basically feel that anyone could use the age old argument of ‘The Jews are influencing world events’ is using this because it compensates their poor world view with an acceptable scapegoat.

I for one don’t think Israel was a bad idea to be founded, they and the Palestinians got respectable chunks of territory to live in after the partition, but due to the sometimes stubborn nature of Arab politics and the culture of ‘face’ they wouldn’t accept this.
So in turn every generation has seen the size of Palestine shrink and shrink, and it’s calls for ‘fighting the occupation’ turned into political sounbytes and slogans.

Which should never happen because it would put both people in the position where sectarian politics would resemble something like Lebanon, maybe worse.

Why. Nice choice of words, considering you’ve not declared it would be a ‘good thing’ for Palestine to cease to exist either.

15

OK. suppose that Israel was never founded (Herzl decided to locate in South Africa). So outside of a very small native population, what is now Israel would be something like the modern country of Jordan. What would be the importance of this area? Close to nil, I’d say. What does the future holf for Israel? Probably more conflict with the Palestinians-and if Egypt becomes a radical Islamic state, all bets are off. I do not see how 7 million jews can hold out against 400 million islamic radicals.
South Africa would have been a better choice :smack:

16

Yeah, because South Africa never had any problems with racism or competing nationalisms.

17

I can’t see how this stupid war benefits Israel any more than it benefits the U.S. It took a dictator who had a shattered military and was hampered by sanctions and no-fly zones and replaced him with utter chaos that will either be a safe haven for terroists or will evolve into Sunni and Shi’ite theocracies. How does this benefit Israel? Even if Iraq becomes a stable democracy against all odds, I doubt if the voters there will be favourably disposed towards Israel.

18

[QUOTE=ralph124c]
(Herzl decided to locate in South Africa)
[/QUOTE]

Herzl wasn’t offered land in South Africa, but in modernUganda.

19

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
Why. Nice choice of words, considering you’ve not declared it would be a ‘good thing’ for Palestine to cease to exist either.
[/QUOTE]

As for why, see the thread linked in my post. As for Palestine, it doesn’t exist yet (as a state) anyway.

20

[QUOTE=Ryan_Liam]
I basically feel that anyone could use the age old argument of ‘The Jews are influencing world events’ is using this because it compensates their poor world view with an acceptable scapegoat.
[/QUOTE]

Well, that always was a canard – until the state of Israel was founded, and immediately became the whole world’s problem. Nowadays it is true that Jews are influencing world events – in ways both intended by them and unintended. Not that that justifies any scapegoating of Jews, or of Israelis.