A sound rule, except WRT anything having to do with the Middle East.
The problem with all of these figures is that, useful though they are, they do not include comparable figures for other countries. That, to me, seems to be the important question - after all, it is one thing if the US is giving Israel a few billion dollars; quite another, if the US is giving every country in the area a few billion dollars.
Well, you could say that we’re paying off Egypt not to make life hard for Israel. It’s done to Israel’s benefit, not to the benefit of “peace” per se. Also, of course, if you’re talking about foreign aid, it does make sense to look on a per capita basis. Egypt has some 80 million people, as against 7 for Israel, so Egypt would have to get about ten times as much as it does get, in order for the comparison to be equal. Plus Egypt is a poor country, and Israel a rich one.
So yes, Israel gets a completely disproportionate amount of aid. And anyway, aid is only piece of the argument cited in the OP. There’s lots of other stuff to be outraged about.
No. There’s aid and there’s “aid”.
According, again, to the Jewish Virtual Library, the 2003 US aid budget to Israel was
Whereas, ibid, in the same year the total foreign (not just US) military aid to Egypt was $1.3 billion.
Your argument hinges on US aid to Egypt being equivalent to that of Israel. Even ignoring aside the massive disparity in population between the two countries (Egypt’s 77 million vs. Israel’s 6.3 million), your argument falls flat, because “US aid” to Israel is all about the armed forces.
By extrapolation, were US aid military contributions to Egypt the same, militaristically per-capita, as Israel’s, then Egypt’s budget would be over $25 billion.
It is not the fact the article presents that are controversial. It is the timing. The facts are well known; there is a well funded and organised lobby within the US that exercises its influence to benefit right-wing Israeli politics.
So why bring it up now? Support for the Iraq war has plunged. It is incontestible that the AIPAC, PNAC & etc were highly successful in introducing Jewish men and sympathizers with strong Likud connections into high public office in the US. These men plainly chose to use the US military as a tool for Israeli foreign policy, without the risk of jeopardizing the lives of actual Israelis.
While these facts are not palatable, the relevant lobby is highly influential in the US media and over both political wings. I believe the popular phrase to describe the situation is ‘the elephant in the room,’ the subject that must not be discussed. In US public life no-one enjoys the same freedom to speak we share on the 'dope.
The article’s authors have seen these events and the opportunity they present to introduce a fissure in the relationship. Right at this moment ‘We are at war for Likud’ could be a powerful way of displacing the lobbys’ influence over parts of US political life. It is a rare chance and the authors are keen to exercise some influence themselves.
Will it succeed? Not in my view. It is a popular fantasy among academics that a well-crafted argument could one day speak louder than the ugly realities of daily life in politics. It is the money that talks.
But Jordan has a smaller population that Israel’s, and yet it gets about the same. How do you explain that?
In any event, the issue is obviously not one of whether aid is “fair” in some sort of social justice sense - obviously it isn’t or the US would be giving aid to every human on the planet proportional to their means. They don’t. They give aid either (a)in what they consider to be their interests - to support stability in areas of interest to the US [their ostensible reason] or (b) as inspired by a lobby more loyal to a foreign country than to the US (what I call for convenience “the conspiracy theory”).
That’s the issue - does the conspiracy theory hold water, or not? I think it is pretty telling that the authors don’t even bring up comparative aid.
As for “stuff to be outraged about” - that strikes me to be what the article is about. A polemic.
I generally agree with Sevastopol in this case. The problem all along has been not just that the Zionist lobby is well funded, but that there’s been no political penalty whatever for accepting their money. Congress members were like, “MM, money!” while doing that little Homeresque thing with their fingers. That puts the Zionist lobby in strong contrast to other well-funded lobbies like the NRA.
One factor that could change things is that it’s easy to send the Zionist lobby into overdrive – which costs money. Recently, the town I live in had a petition drive around disinvestment from Israel. It was a small-scale, underfunded, not particularly competent effort. But man, you should have seen the counterreaction. The Israeli consul was showing up for hearings, there were ads taken out in the newspapers, op-ed pieces being written, our mayor was flown to Israel… You begin to realize that a lot of widely dispersed anti-Zionist provocateurs could end up costing the lobby some serious shekels.
But it doesn’t. Jordan’s appropriation this year was $456 million, verusus $2.5 billion for Israel (note – the source here is AIPAC.)
Well, whichever one you believe, it would be the contention of the authors of the article cited in the OP that our national interest is not served by supporting Israel. Again, from a realpolitik perspective, we have to ask, what’s in it for us? It should at least be a subject of discussion in this country what role our support for Israel played in getting us into this multi-trillion-dollar “war on terrorism” mess. I believe – and the authors of the article believe – there’s a very strong correlation there, which would make our support for Israel one of the most expensive foreign-policy mistakes ever made. And it’s particularly reprehensible if the only reason we made that mistake in the first place was that Congress was on the take.
I thank you for finding the comparable tables for Egyptian military aid. Though I would still like to see (but could not find on my own) a specific US source.
but once again you commit the same fallacy that Sal Ammoniac - that US aid is somehow about social fairness on a per-capita basis. This clearly is not the case, the US does not even pretend to hand out money based on need and numbers.
The issue is whether or not they are handing out money based on their own interests or under the prompting of a disloyal “Israel Lobby”.
It simply makes no sense that the “Israel Lobby” would press for similar levels of aid to (for example) Jordan, let alone for billions to Egypt
The fact is that the position you advocate makes no sense from an “interst balancing” point of view. If the whole purpose of providing aid is to prevent war, what sensible US objective would be served by providing Egypt with military aid proportional to its population, when its main enemy is likely to be Israel?
Malthus, what are you getting at here? Are you saying that our completely disproportionate aid to Israel is justified? If so, how?
Who?
I was citing the earlier figures for purely non-military aid. I do request military aid figures, if available.
It seems obvious to me “what’s in it for us” - to avoid devistating wars in the region, that’s what. Like we have seen in the past.
Anyway, I have no wish to debate the “war on terrorism”. I merely wished to examine the theory posed in the article linked to the OP.
What’s most “damning” about the Mearsheimer and Walt article is its basic premise, as noted by James Taranto in this article in last week’s Wall St. Journal:
"Walt and Mearsheimer argue that “neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s support for Israel,” and therefore the only possible explanation is “the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.” "
That seems to be the justification for similarly-styled attacks on the “Israel Lobby” (Lobby is capitalized to emphasize its sinister nature) - Israel is so utterly eee-vil that there can be no explanation for its continued support by the American people, other than that they are being deceived by the machinations of a Lobby. Never mind the lobbying powers of the Arabs and their supporters, the generous foreign aid provided to Arab nations (as noted by Captain Amazing) and the enormous influence of Arab oil: the fact that U.S. policy continues to favor Israel can only be due to pernicious institutions like AIPAC, the New York Times, The Brookings Institution etc. etc. :rolleyes:
The Taranto article provides a nice counterpoint to this nonsense.
Well, given that we’re involved in a devastating war in the region, I’d say that was sort of a moot point.
But by not wanting to debate the war on terrorism, you miss one of the main points. After all, the article talks at great length about Israel and its connection with the war on terrorism.
Jackmanii, are you arguing that some great purpose is served by our support of Israel? A great purpose that offsets what have been arguably some disastrous consequences?
No conspiracy need be proven as no conspiracy is being alleged. AIPAC is merely a lobby among lobbys, just like the NRA or the AARP. Its activites aren’t illegal (The espionage scandal to one side.) My concern is that when a lobby becomes so powerful it can set the terms of the debate, Democracy and American interests suffer.
Again my argument is not with the aid per se, but rather with U.S. policy. I’d be fine if U.S. Aid to Israel didn’t diminish at all, as long as it was tied to Israel taking steps to end the occupation of the territories, end the abuse of Palestinians, and help set up a viable Palestinian state. I have nothing against Israel, I just think American foreign policy should advance American interests.
Jackmanni thanks for linking to that brief article. That’s the kind of substantive criticism I was looking for. However Taranto just isn’t that convincing.
1.) He does not show how our one sided support for Israel advances American interests.
2.) He claims that Israel is much better than a lot of other countries. No one said it wasn’t. Israel is no North Korea or even Saudi Arabia. But U.S. foreign policy isn’t supporting North Korea. I suppose you could say it supports the Saudis, but at least there’s a pragmatic reason for that–Our sad dependance on Saudi Oil. If an argument for supporting Israel is to be made on moral grounds, Israel must do better by the Palestinians. Being better than North Korea is not sufficient.
3.) Like the WaPo he brings up David Duke. This is an invalid attempt to squash the debate. The syllogism seems to go like this:
a.) David Duke is critical of Israel
b.)Walt and Mearsheimer are critical of Israel
c.)Walt and Mearsheimer have the same ideology as David Duke.
This is just a slightly more sophisticated version of the “everybody who criticizes Israel is an anti-semite” argument. Many Jews are critical of Israel. Hell, so are many Israelis. And many of the “Christian Zionists” are not exactly philo-semetic.
My position is as follows:
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that U.S. interests would be better served if its foreign policy were less weighted in favor of Israel.
It’s proper to recruit support for such arguments among columnists, think tanks, web sites and university professors, and to lobby vigorously for adoption of your ideas in Congress.
It’s fine to refute arguments made by the other side.
What’s not a legitimate tactic is to claim that the American people would buy into your ideas, were it not for the other side’s employng a Manipulative Cabal, a.k.a the “Israel Lobby”, which has got to be evil because, well, because it’s more effective than your Lobby. It’s a lot easier to fulminate about Powerful Lobbies than to concede that possibly one’s ideas aren’t taking root because in many cases they’re simplistic and just plain wrong.
And in answer to Larry, Taranto’s article does not make facile references to David Duke in order to “squash the debate”. What I think he recognizes is the appeal to David Duke and his kind of the concept of an all-powerful Lobby that manipulates events behind the scenes, and which Americans would supposedly reject if they only knew the full extent of its machinations. This is bound to strike a chord in people who promote and/or believe things like “Jews control the media”.
If Israel’s opponents don’t like being linked to anti-Semitism, they would do well to empower themselves using reason, facts and honest debate (not to mention cash - they’ve got access to plenty of it), rather than trying to smear Israel’s supporters.
Can you show where such an argument has been made? There is a sound analogy with US foreign policy regarding Cuba. That is, a large swathe of the population is more or less indifferent. However, there is an influential and determined lobby on the particular issue. Given the absence of opposition, politicians of whatever stripe are happy to go along.
Again there is no Conspiracy argument being made. AIPAC is a well known public organization. They have a website. They aren’t a shadowy secret cabal of Jews, they’re simply a very powerful lobby. This has no more to do with the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” than the AARP has to do with the “Protcols of the Elders of Elders.”
I’m sure David Duke and his ilk do believe in an all-powerful secret conspiracy of Jews. So what? Why should the beliefs of racist crackpots prevent the discussion of the counterproductive effects of a powerful lobby. It’s like painting anyone who’s concerned about the environment as ELF terrorists.
My Jewish History teacher, today in class, compared this article to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” I think the analogy is rather overblown.
As I see it, any attempt to blame an “Israel Lobby” for prevailing favorable attitudes in the U.S. towards Israel is lame, short-sighted and foolish (“Why do we have less influence than those people? It’s…it’s because they’re more influential! That’s wrong!!”) OR it’s an argument that depends on there being some unfair advantage or nefarious modus operandi on the part of pro-Israel advocates OR it’s an admission that the pro-Arab Lobby is so clueless and ineffectual that it’s allowed itself to be soundly defeated by its opponent, despite supposedly having overwhelming morality and national interest on its side.
So which is it, for those who believe Mearsheimer and Walt are right?
No, it’s being blamed for our government’s pro-Israel policies, which, to the critics, seem to go a lot further than actual public opinion on Israel would support.