Levy on the Lobby

Daniel Levy, not unpredictably, has what's to my mind the best take on The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy that I've seen yet. He does a great job of highlighting the very real flaws in the Walt-Mearsheimer argument without turning that into mere triangulation in the face of their more deranged critics. The problems Levy points to, in my view, stem basically from the limits of Walt and Mearsheimer's methodology.

Basically, as realists, I think they don't really "get" ideology and the extent to which the World War IV view of the world exists as a freestanding, transnational (most influential, clearly, in US and Israeli politics, but also with some sway in the UK and Australia and some of its leading proponents in the US are Canadian, etc.) view of things that's not "about" serving Israel's interests or America's interests or, indeed, anyone's interests -- it's just wrong.

Comments

This seems a pretty sensible modification of the Walt-Mearsheimer argument.

After all, it's a little silly to call it the "Israel Lobby" when during the mid-1990s Oslo/Labor period, many of the leading organs of the Lobby were so ferocious in their denunciation of the government of Israel and its policies as to seem almost unhinged. During that period, it was more of an "Anti-Israel Lobby."

And obviously calling it the "Jewish Lobby" is also not entirely correct, and certainly "anti-Semitic".

Perhaps the most correct and accurate term might be the "Crazy Jewish Activist Lobby."

Since our good friend SLC is obviously an aspiring member of that Lobby, perhaps we could ask his opinion of this suggested term...

Posted by RKU | October 5, 2007 1:31 PM

How about the "Evil Foreign Conspiracy to Promote Everything with which I Disagree Lobby"?

Posted by southpaw | October 5, 2007 1:49 PM

"Evil Foreign Conspiracy"? Really? Is that just a wind-up or can't you spell "protocols"?

I'd probably go with "Myopic American Likudnik Lobby", if I was naming it.

Posted by Joe | October 5, 2007 1:57 PM

Levy's was a very good essay. Maybe many of the points should be obvious, but given the hysterical nature of much debate regarding US foreign policy and Israel, often goes uncontextualized:

The view that sees neocons as spearheading the Israel lobby position under Bush has serious flaws. It is more likely that the neocons co-opted the Israel lobby, and Israel itself, to their own vision of regional transformation. Still, most of the Israel lobby were willing accomplices, and this represents their historic error. The gradual and consistent ideological drift to the right of key Israel lobby elements since the 1970s, and the hawkish excess of mainstream groups, made this cooperation not only possible, but natural, almost seamless. The picture is complete when the role of Ariel Sharon, then Israeli premier, is added. Sharon was a hawk, but no neocon. He viewed dreams of regional transformation, democratization and regime change with scorn and disdain, but he could spot a useful political ally when he saw one. The neocons would be his bulwark against being dragged into a negotiating process with the Palestinians or Syrians, as America re-calibrated its approach to the Middle East post-9/11.

Israelis frequently complain of the ridiculously right wing hawkery of their American "supporters", those so-called "pro-Israel" types who seem to view themselves, and not necessarily Israel's residents, as the proper designers of Israeli domestic and foreign strategy.

If the US hawks didn't see Israel as useful to their goals, or as actually antithetical to their aims, then suddenly the "lobby" power would drop precipitously.

Posted by El Cid | October 5, 2007 2:02 PM

This seems less of a review than a simple summary of their arguments.

One argument I've seen from both this author and commenters on this site is that AIPAC is not a lobby for the state of Israel, but for a ultra right wing Israelis and american jews.

The problem with this argument is that once it is made, the people who make it go back to talking about the the Isreali lobby.

It's as if someone wrote a book called the White Lobby that was about christian fundamentalists and then said, well we arent talking about white people, were talking about christian fundamentalists even though we call it the White Lobby and use that term over and over and over again.

Posted by Dave | October 5, 2007 2:15 PM

Re Daniel Levy

Mr. Levys' review of the Walt/Mearsheimer book is eminently predictable, just as I suspect others on this blog will consider my reaction to be eminently predictable. Mr. Levy is a member of the appeasement faction in Israel which, despite all the evidence to the contrary, believes that if only Israelis show sufficient love for the Arabs, that love will be reciprocated. Unfortunately, Mr. Levy apparently has never bothered to study the approach used by Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s. If he had, he would have discovered that appeasement doesn't pay. The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular only understand strength. Being nice to them is interpreted as weakness in their eyes.

Posted by SLC | October 5, 2007 3:06 PM

just as I suspect others on this blog will consider my reaction to be eminently predictable...

Posted by SLC

Well, at least you're committed enough to your insane hysterics to keep repeating them no matter how eminently predictable or utterly unconvincing they may be.

Posted by El Cid | October 5, 2007 3:10 PM

The problem with this argument is that once it is made, the people who make it go back to talking about the the Isreali lobby.

That does suggest a worthwhile challenge to come up with an accurate yet pithy two or three word epithet which better represents the reality of this grouping.

Any ideas?

Posted by El Cid | October 5, 2007 3:12 PM

Re: "Mr. Levy apparently has never bothered to study the approach used by Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s. If he had, he would have discovered that appeasement doesn't pay."

Based on one instance in which appeasement didn't work, we can conclude that it never works. Brilliant logic!

Re: "The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular only understand strength."

If I strap you down and start administering electirc shocks to you, I'm sure I could soon demonstrate that the only thing you understand is pain. Furthermore, I'm sure Palestinian hardliners are saying the same thing about Israelis: that the only way to get concessions out of them is through terrorist attacks.

Posted by Jim W | October 5, 2007 3:20 PM

SLC, there are times when you give the impression of being rational. Why it is not possible for you to write without constantly attacking any Jewish thinker who might disagree with you? Why is it not possible for you to stop stereotyping Palestinians or Arabs? Must you always descend to hatred? This only makes a person appear crazy and racist.

I thought I would try.

Posted by Jennifer | October 5, 2007 3:29 PM

Re Jim W

"If I strap you down and start administering electirc shocks to you, I'm sure I could soon demonstrate that the only thing you understand is pain. Furthermore, I'm sure Palestinian hardliners are saying the same thing about Israelis: that the only way to get concessions out of them is through terrorist attacks."

Poooooor babies. Maybe the Palestinians should try behaving themselves for a while. After all, there are people like Mr. Levy on the other side who are willing to appease them.

Posted by SLC | October 5, 2007 3:31 PM

SLC, I am almost certainly wrong to think you are capable of being rational but I will try. Stop the hatred of peace-loving Jews and non-Jews. Can you understand? I doubt it, but I tried.

Posted by Jennifer | October 5, 2007 3:33 PM

SLC, you are a degenerate monster. There is no hope, you are simply sickening slime. I wonder why you need to slime peace-loving Jews like Daniel Levy over and over. I suspect I know why.

Posted by Jennifer | October 5, 2007 3:37 PM

Re Dave's comment "The problem with this argument is that once it is made, the people who make it go back to talking about the the Isreali lobby."
----------
Actually, the term is "the Israel Lobby" NOT "the Israeli Lobby". Because the people involved cast their policies as support of Israel. Even though they are American, not Israeli --some are not even Jewish.

The "Israeli Lobby" would make no sense. While Israel is largely owned by 19 or so billionaire oligarchs, those men can't dump money into the US political process or control US publications -- unless, like Haim Saban, they acquire dual US citizenship.

It is true that the phrase "Israel Lobby" is a crafty, carefully vague term of art. I can add people to the Lobby as convenient. By doing so, I can point to minor acts and hint that they are suggestive of far more malign purposes and evil betrayals.

In that regard, "Israel Lobby" is the mirror image of how the phrase "anti-Semite" is unfairly used by members of the Israel Lobby.

I have no problem with a Jewish American pointing out that Israel is an ally of the US and that her welfare deserves some consideration. Such a person should not be accused --just because of that -- of plotting to betray America.

But I also have no problem with another American objecting when the propaganda of the Israel Lobby leads us into an unnecessary ,disasterous war. I don't think such Americans --like Mearsheimer and Walt -- should be smeared as anti-Semitic.

Especially when the intent is to use a phrase that is intentionally so vague as to be unrefutable while darkly hinting that the person to whom it is applied is about to break out the Zyklon B and fire up the ovens.

Re Dave's "White Lobby" analogy, Dave might ask himself how it is that people who simply argue that Arab Semites are human too can be cast as "anti-Semitic"?

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 4:12 PM

So, who are these Canadians in the U.S. that Matt refers to?

David Frum?
Mark Steyn?
Conrad Black and his wife Barbara Amiel?

Anybody else? I don't think he meant the late Peter Jennings ...

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 5, 2007 4:16 PM

Don't forget Canadian Charles Krauthammer...

Posted by RKU | October 5, 2007 4:25 PM

Don Williams,

Do you actually believe that it was the propaganda of the Israel Lobby that led us into Iraq? Do you honestly believe that but for this lobby the Bush administration would not have gone to war in Iraq?

"I have no problem with a Jewish American pointing out that Israel is an ally of the US and that her welfare deserves some consideration. Such a person should not be accused --just because of that -- of plotting to betray America."

Wow, you're open-hearted tolercance is awfully kind.

Posted by Joe | October 5, 2007 4:28 PM

Don Williams,

Do you actually believe that it was the propaganda of the Israel Lobby that led us into Iraq? Do you honestly believe that but for this lobby the Bush administration would not have gone to war in Iraq? So you're saying that poor impressionable Bush and Cheney were simply overcome by the charismatic power of the scheming Jews?

"I have no problem with a Jewish American pointing out that Israel is an ally of the US and that her welfare deserves some consideration. Such a person should not be accused --just because of that -- of plotting to betray America."

Wow, you're open-hearted tolercance is awfully kind.

Posted by Joe | October 5, 2007 4:30 PM

Re Joe's comment "Do you actually believe that it was the propaganda of the Israel Lobby that led us into Iraq? Do you honestly believe that but for this lobby the Bush administration would not have gone to war in Iraq? So you're saying that poor impressionable Bush and Cheney were simply overcome by the charismatic power of the scheming Jews?"
--------------
1) Hey, I just know what I read in Haaretz and what Jewish American Reporter Tom Friedman at the New York Times tells me.

From
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=280279&contrassID=2&subContrassID=14&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible. But another journalist, Thomas Friedman (not part of the group), is skeptical ...
...Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. "

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 4:37 PM

American Likudnik Lobby is very, very good. Just Likud Lobby would also be fine, I suppose. No need to include any viewpoint descriptor like myopic.

I found this part of Levy's preamble concerning:

The more important challenges though concern the future. Freedom’s Watch and the push for a military attack on Iran has an eerie familiarity about it. Just look at who the prime donor and mover behind Freedom’s Watch is – Sheldon Adelson – close ally of Bibi Netanyahu who has poured millions into a pro-Bibi daily paper in Israel (read this Jim Lobe piece for more).

Will Jewish and non-Jewish Americans who care about and understand the connection between American security, Middle East stability and Israeli well-being stand up, speak out and be a counter-weight this time?

Posted by bob | October 5, 2007 4:37 PM

When Joe is ready to stop being a butthole, I will point him to some of my past posts in which I argued that:
a) Bush/Cheney initiated the Iraq invasion to seize the Iraq oil deposits for Big Oil
b) That they kneecapped any Democratic opposition to this kleptocratic move by casting the invasion as dealing with an enemy of Israel -- in order to sell the idea to some billionaire supporters of Israel who provide much of the funding for the Democratic Party.
c) That Democratic Leaders --terrified of loosing their financiers -- chose to go along with the scam. Even though doing so condemmned 3700 of our soldiers to death.

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 4:43 PM

The problem with Levy and Yglesias is that they just can't accept that the majority of Israelis and American Jews don't agree with them. The government of Israel is elected, and its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors aren't secret or ignored by most voters: they are the subject of considerable debate and discussion in Israel, after which debate the majority pretty consistently elects governments that don't do what Levy wants. For Levy to wish for the American government to override the wishes of his fellow citizens is rather undemocratic.

Similarly, the major Jewish organizations in America simply don't endorse the policies Matt Yglesias prefers. Those organizations aren't neoconservative or even particularly ideological: they're mostly composed of boring Jewish businessmen. But they don't support Peace Now or its policies. Rather than fulminating against neoconservatives, Yglesias, if he really cares, should join some committees, do some volunteer work and raise some money at the UJA or the JNF or even his local synagogue. I think he will find that a majority of his fellow Jews have considered and rejected his views of how to bring peace and/or justice to the Mideast, but maybe I'm wrong.

Posted by y81 | October 5, 2007 5:03 PM

PS Joe, a few days ago I also noted that most American Jews are not part of the Israel Lobby. Face it, you don't have that many votes and most of you only have middle class incomes.

You are the "Chosen People" only in that you are chosen to pay off your wife's ever increasing balance at Bloomies -- and to be a perpetual disappointment to your mother-in-law.

Which leaves bobkes for campaign donations and political bribes.

A glick ahf dir.

Posted by Don Williams | October 5, 2007 5:07 PM

y81 could not be more wrong. He/she says:

"The problem with Levy and Yglesias is that they just can't accept that the majority of Israelis and American Jews don't agree with them."

Actually, polls consistently show that the idea of "support for Israel" is not the same thing as "support for Bush policies in the Middle East." Most American Jews (and, in fact, most of my fellow co-religionists) are not fans of the Bush approach. Show me evidence that most Jews or Israelis view the Bush approach (or the Bill Kristol approach) as the proper one.

"The government of Israel is elected, and its policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors aren't secret or ignored by most voters: they are the subject of considerable debate and discussion in Israel, after which debate the majority pretty consistently elects governments that don't do what Levy wants. For Levy to wish for the American government to override the wishes of his fellow citizens is rather undemocratic."

This presumes that the only issue on teh table in these elections is the Palestinian one -- it is not, and not by a long shot. There are a host of issues on the table in these elections (ranging from the Rabbinate to corruption) and the media in Israel is far harder on the government (even amongst supporters of Kristol-Lite) than would be permitted here.

"Similarly, the major Jewish organizations in America simply don't endorse the policies Matt Yglesias prefers. Those organizations aren't neoconservative or even particularly ideological: they're mostly composed of boring Jewish businessmen."

A fairly small number of financial supporters drive these organizations. We do, however, need to have more Jews like Josh Marshall and Matt Yglesias do more within these organizations to pry them away from fools.

Posted by IP Guy | October 5, 2007 5:31 PM

Don,

Leaving aside your odd comment about most non-billionaire American Jews. Am I right to understand that your argument is that it wasn't that American Jews (who were too busy holding their wives' bags at Bloomies, apparently) led us into war in Iraq, it's that the Bush Administration wanted to go to war, but would not have been able to do it without the secret cabal of the 19 Jewish billionaires who run Israel and, apparently, the Democratic party.

Am I understanding correctly?

Posted by Joe | October 5, 2007 6:28 PM

Don,

By the way, I want you to know that I did appreciate your dividing up of the population of Jews into the the hen-pecked ineffectual ones, and the ones that are billionaires running the world.

Aber ich bevorzuge es auf den ursprünglichen Deutsch.

Posted by Joe | October 5, 2007 7:02 PM

The majority of Israelis have been polled at 2/3 of them being against the occupation and seeing the settlers as traitors. Settler groups have threatened Israel proper with civil war in the past. Sharon got elected based on the youth vote who didn't know his history in Lebanon and fell for his rhetoric of being the peace candidate. American Jews were one of the most anti-Iraq War populations in the US. I could make my own organization for Indian-Americans and claim that I represent the Indian-American community, but that wouldn't make it true. The majority of American Jews, like most Americans, have a variety of issues foreign and domestic they care about. However, a small group allied with Christian Zionist anti-Semites care only about Israel and these are the obsessives who join AIPAC. Are minorities supposed to all join up the organization that best expresses their views on what can be seen as "their issues?"

"Poooooor babies. Maybe the Palestinians should try behaving themselves for a while. After all, there are people like Mr. Levy on the other side who are willing to appease them."

The Israeli government has behaved badly as well. When you act in an imperial manner and enact policies based on religious fundamentalism against other people (Greater Israel and the settlements, which are a form of ethnic cleansing like Maoist policies in Tibet), you are behaving badly. When you control other people's land, you are behaving badly. When you elect a guy who bombed a hotel, you are behaving badly. When you create the context over years that allows terrorist groups to rise up, kill off potential liberal rivals and kill your own people, you behave badly. The Israeli government is the stronger power in the conflict and has had more power to shape the current contours of the present situation. The Israeli government and AIPAC have failed to take responsibility for their own actions, failures and racism. Where else in the world do you have a racially segregated system of roads? The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelaam use suicide bombing more than any other terrorist group in the world, yet has brutal and corrupt Colombo set up a segregated road system? Human and civil rights are not something you give to someone when every member of their population "behaves." It's something you do because it is what liberal states have to do to be liberal. It is the right thing to do.

Posted by Reality Man | October 5, 2007 7:17 PM

"PS Joe, a few days ago I also noted that most American Jews are not part of the Israel Lobby. Face it, you don't have that many votes and most of you only have middle class incomes.

You are the "Chosen People" only in that you are chosen to pay off your wife's ever increasing balance at Bloomies -- and to be a perpetual disappointment to your mother-in-law.

Which leaves bobkes for campaign donations and political bribes.

A glick ahf dir."

I don't know or can't articulate which brand of prejudice or offense you're guilty of with this most recent post of yours, but I would like to reiterate my opinion of you as an asshat.

Posted by DRR | October 5, 2007 7:26 PM

Levy's review is fair and balanced, for the most part.

He gets it wrong only here:

"On Iran, the authors draw our attention to two missed opportunities, both under former-president Mohammad Khatami, for a comprehensive U.S.-Iranian dialogue, and suggest a diplomatic way forward out of the current impasse. They contend that Israel and the lobby are driving policy in the opposite direction. If that is true, and evidence is certainly out there, then it suggests the neocon world view is still in the driver's seat, and that Israel and the lobby have learned nothing from the last years. Israel, declaratively at least, prefers a diplomatic solution, and both Israel and her friends should be pushing actively for enhanced diplomacy, not the ratcheting up of military threats that so play into the hands of Ahmadinejad."

Stating that "Israel, declaratively at least, prefers a diplomatic solution" is disingenuous. Of COURSE Israel "prefers a diplomatic solution" - in the sense of Iran rolling over and playing dead, voluntarily giving up its current regime and accepting a dominant US and Israel presence in the ME.

Dream on, Daniel.

In all OTHER respects, Israel has been and continues to threaten and plan for WAR with Iran - and continually and non-stop urges the US to attack Iran "before it's too late". They also CLEARLY wanted the US to attack Iran way back in 2002 before falling into line with the (correctly described) "neocon obsession" and accepting an attack on Iraq FIRST.

Actually, Iraq really wasn't a "neocon obsession". Anybody with any military concept can see that attacking Iran FIRST without a supporting base in neighboring Iraq simply wasn't viable. Afghanistan is too far away from Tehran on the other side. Turkey is not a viable launch point.

If your goal is to seize the Iranian oil fields in Khuzestan, you HAVE to attack from Iraq and the Persian Gulf. You can't JUST attack from the Persian Gulf - you need more troops than that.

It has been suggested that we could attack from Azerbaijan but that is less feasible - and would be a really big tipoff that we intended to do so.

But if you attack Iraq FIRST, then claim you're "rebuilding the country" to justify 160,000 troops on Iran's border, well...

So Levy is wrong on this count entirely.

"Syria is the arena in which the neocon-inspired U.S. position and the Israeli position seem most at odds: a policy of promoting regime change versus one that says, we are ready to negotiate with you (when we're not conducting military missions inside your territory)."

Again, this is disingenuous, albeit less so by recognizing Israel's outright military aggression against Syria. Israel's leaders have no interest with LONG-TERM peace with Syria. Short-term, yes - until Israel can find a way to accomplish regime change in Syria. Long-term, oh, hell, no.

"The book also makes the case that in the Second Lebanon War, the Israel lobby helped prevent early U.S. intervention to end the war. If that is true, it would present a particularly glaring example of the lobby working against the Israeli interest, and another reason why Israelis should follow this issue closely. Analysis of key ministerial testimonies to the Winograd Committee and the Interim Winograd Report itself suggests that very senior Israelis based their calculations and decisions on an expectation that the U.S. would pursue an early diplomatic solution. The neocons implacably opposed this, the lobby fell into line and Israel "reaped the rewards," all the way to the cemeteries."

Ahem - who started the massive war? Not Hizballah - they captured two soldiers, fully expecting to negotiate for their release. What they got instead was a berserker attack on the entire country culminating in the dropping of millions of cluster bombs on an entire area of the Lebanon.

This is representative of a desire for "an early diplomatic solution?"

Please.

Levy is deluded in his conception of how the leaders of Israel think. In all other respects, however, his review of M&W is quite balanced and clearly recognizes the value of the book.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 5, 2007 11:37 PM

"The Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular only understand strength. Being nice to them is interpreted as weakness in their eyes."

You're absolutely correct, SLC.

And it is equally true of the Israeli Zionists.

Which is why Abbas is a loser and Hamas are the people who should be calling the Palestinian shots.

Which is why I personally think Zionists should get a bullet in the head instead of blowing up buses full of civilians.

Don't blow up a bus. Shoot Olmert in the head. Don't even bother shooting Israeli soldiers in the head (except when you have to.) Concentrate on shooting corrupt Zionist leaders in the head.

Shoot enough corrupt Zionists, there won't be any. Then the rational Israelis (if any) and the rational Palestinians (if any) can negotiate.

Actually, in that scenario, there would be little negotiation. RATIONAL Israelis would recognize that Israel is an illegal, rogue, pariah state, give up the notion of "Zionism", form the binational state of Palestine, and grant equal rights to everybody, Jewish and Palestinian.

And there will be ponies.

I'm reminded of a comic story arc where Doctor Doom persuades the powerful son of the Fantastic Four to recreate his alternative Earth to be an Eden. The kid wants ponies, too. Doom agrees that there will be ponies. Once it's done, Doom immediately fries the kid and the ponies.

This is more likely how things are actually going to turn out. Israel is going to be destroyed, probably a lot of Palestinians and assorted other Arabs are going to be destroyed - and eventually Israel is going to be Palestine - or something that is called Palestine - again eventually.

All because nobody had the brains to shoot a few corrupt Zionists and a few corrupt Palestinians.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 5, 2007 11:48 PM

"American Likudnik Lobby is very, very good. Just Likud Lobby would also be fine,"

Nope, sorry. Not everybody pushing the Israeli line is a Likudnik. Some are in other Israeli parties. Likudnik is too narrow.

If you mean it in the sense of "likudnik POLICIES", it's probably still wrong.

Why not call it what it IS - "The Corrupt Zionist Lobby"?

I added "Corrupt" to distinguish the Zionists of this ilk from the so-called "classical Zionists" like Levy and MJ Rosenberg.

Most of the neocons - certainly all the Jewish ones AFAIK - support the corrupt, fascist version of Zionism. Not that the "classical Zionists" were particularly nice, let alone rational enough to see that the whole Zionist concept was brain dead for starters. But at least they thought in terms of peaceful assimilation, buying up property from the Palestinians, yada, yada. Not ethnic cleansing, war, terrorism, apartheid, etc.

But ALL of the neocons and the Israel Lobby crowd believe in corruption and war and ethnic cleansing. Power and greed are their hallmarks.

So call them by their actual characteristics - "Corrupt Zionist Lobby." They're corrupt, they're "Zionists" (in some sense), and they lobby.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 5, 2007 11:58 PM

Just a comment on this:

"Basically, as realists, I think they don't really "get" ideology and the extent to which the World War IV view of the world exists as a freestanding, transnational (most influential, clearly, in US and Israeli politics, but also with some sway in the UK and Australia and some of its leading proponents in the US are Canadian, etc.) view of things that's not "about" serving Israel's interests or America's interests or, indeed, anyone's interests -- it's just wrong."

That a too simple explaination of the mix.
First, if you want to be complete in that statement you have to explain also that most countries take their clues from the US. They do this because they long ago let the US assume the role of supreme super cop in the universe. It relieved them of costly obligations and burdens of leadership in the universal sphere.
The US set the tone of the "transnationalism" and now now other countries are follwing suit believing that as goes the US so too they must go.
The transnationalism was brought about by that mixture of Isr'merica-ism promoted by the neo's and seconded by the US Israelis because it also suited their ME needs and desires.

Cause and effect.

But you are right it is wrong.

Posted by Renfro | October 6, 2007 2:46 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

I have to agree with Mr. Hack in this regard. I wish someone would give the traitor Olmert and all his fellow traitors the bump so that they can be replaced with leaders who will put Israel first. In particular, a leadership who will take a page out of the Hafaz Assad playbook and impose Hama rules on terrorists.

Posted by SLC | October 6, 2007 8:27 AM

This demonstrates what a fanatic SLC is - to consider Olmert a "traitor". I guess it's because Olmert hasn't nuked Lebanon AND Iran AND Syria AND Saudi Arabia AND Egypt AND Jordan AND the Palestinians - and the radioactive fallout on Israel be damned...

As for "Hama rules on terrorists", I'd like to see the same rules applied by the US to the IDF the next time they murder civilians in Lebanon.

Hey, Israelis! Let US show you how "shock and awe" is actually done! They talk about knocking out Iran in "three days". Hell, the US could knock out Israel in an afternoon and be home for tea...

What are they gonna do about it - send one of their submarines to the East Coast and nuke all the Jews in New York or Miami?

The next time the IDF decides to murder civilians, the US should inform them that their entire military is standing down NOW. ANY movement by ANY military unit will result in said unit being removed from existence.

See how fast the Israelis will comply. They'll shit themselves complying.

Of course, that would require a US President with the balls to allow himself to be called "anti-Semitic."

Never happen. But we can dream.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 7, 2007 5:27 AM

After all, it's a little silly to call it the "Israel Lobby" when during the mid-1990s Oslo/Labor period, many of the leading organs of the Lobby were so ferocious in their denunciation of the government of Israel and its policies as to seem almost unhinged. During that period, it was more of an "Anti-Israel Lobby."

You'd have to clarify. AIPAC an an organization is an Israeli lobby and to my knowledge has never criticized the Israeli government over anything and I'd be incredibly suprised to find any evidence that ever happened. If the Israeli government decided to fill up the Negev Desert with bouncy moon castle things, AIPAC would have staffers dispatched to congress that day to try and secure funding for it.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations would fit the bill for a bunch of wackjob zionist flakes who are pushing their own agenda independent of the Israeli government but they are lesser known (though not without a powerful amount of influence).

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 7, 2007 2:20 PM