|
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy | 
| Authors: John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
Category: Book
List Price: $26.00
Buy Used: $6.97
You Save: $19.03 (73%)
New (40) Used (44) Collectible (3) from $6.97
Avg. Customer Rating:  188 reviews
Sales Rank: 30106
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1st
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 496
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.8
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.5 x 1.7
ISBN: 0374177724
Dewey Decimal Number: 327.7305694
EAN: 9780374177720
ASIN: 0374177724
Publication Date: August 27, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: A few pages have there corners cut and the dustjacket has a few tears but still in good shape and has clean pages
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The Israel Lobby,” by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy. Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror. Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.” The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books of the year.
Book Description
In March 2006, in the London Review of Books, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government published one of the most hotly debated articles in recent memory. "The Israel Lobby" provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for breaking the silence surrounding the most taboo political question: What is the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy—and is it in the national interest?
Including new material on recent developments, as well as deepening and expanding on the arguments presented in their original article, Mearsheimer and Walt describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and contend that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This close alliance is, they argue, due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively conclude that the policies and positions adopted by the U.S. as a result are in neither America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest—and they have far-reaching implications around the world, from Iraq, Iran, and Lebanon to America's relationships with its allies, to the spread of global jihadist terror.
Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, "Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations' in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force." Mearsheimer and Walt's argument has been widely—and sometimes heatedly—covered in the national and international press and by opinion pages. The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to expand the debate and to be one of the most talked about books of the year.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 183 more reviews...
 Read this book. September 23, 2008
3 out of 5 found this review helpful
Have you wondered why 19 Arabs flew 2 planes into the 2 towers? Have you wondered why Palestinians cheered on 9-11? Do you wonder why Arabs hate us? Do you wonder why George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the US congress supports Zionist aggression? Read this book. In a scholarly and organized fashion the authors show convincingly how Israel and US foreign policy has been a counterproductive and destabilizing influence, strengthening terrorist forces, and weakening our allies, and the degree to which the formidable lobby efforts on behalf of Zionist aggression has facilitated this mess.
Eye Opening September 22, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
Very informative insight on how our foreign affairs are conducted in the U.S. and why, all supported with facts and well documented research.
I highly recomend this book to anyone interested in Political Science or just in U.S. politics in general.
Read learn and enlighten yourself September 18, 2008
2 out of 5 found this review helpful
This book will point out a lot of hard facts that were over looked in the past 4 decades. These matters should be brought to every ones attention more often! Great Book! Much detail! Good luck trying to refute these cold hard facts?
 Deeply flawed premise September 7, 2008
2 out of 11 found this review helpful
"The Israel Lobby" is a flawed thesis based on poor logic, somewhat what insufficient research and constantly biased polemicizing of American foreign policy. Opinions masquerade as fact and the central character of "the lobby" metamorphosizes at will like silly putty to fit whatever situation M&W describe.
I will divide the book into 3 themes and limit my examples of problems to a few points apiece per thematic exposition.
The first theme is a revisionist view of Israel's history for the purpose of maligning it making it unworthy of anyone's support. This polemic takes up the first third of the book - no similar argument is made regarding the behavior of Israel's adversaries - it's as if Israeli actions take place in a vacuum
a)Historian Benny Morris, cited liberally in a supporting capacity, differs strongly with the misapplication of his writings and points out the problems in an article in The New Republic, archived here: http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000049.html. To Morris' analysis I would add that whatever assets Israel might have had in weapons or manpower prior to Independence in 1948 was muted by the scarcity of munitions (ie: bullets, shells) caused by the British blockade against armaments to the Jews that did not affect the Arabs. Israel's main source of bullets was a single small clandestine factory in Rehovot hidden underneath a laundry used by the British. If the war in 1948 was a foregone conclusion then why did the Arabs pursue the war at all, why did the Israelis lose more battles than they won and why did over 6000 new Israelis (1% of the population) have to die fighting it?
b)On pp 37 M&W state that Eisenhower could credibly threaten to withhold aid however U.S. aid to Israel during the Eisenhower years US aid averaged 63 million dollars per year and was mostly used for resettling Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands. M&W ascribe a much greater weight to US economic influence than existed as France was Israel's major military supplier.
Where the US did withhold 23 million in aid was over a riparian dispute over diversion of waters from the Jordan River by Israel which was handled by negotiations under an existing treaty.
In contrast M&W fail to mention a similar incident in 1963 where Syria and Jordan embark on a more serious project aided by the Soviets to divert the headwaters of the Jordan around Israel, cutting off most of Israel's water supply. The attempt to revive the project in 1966 and the blowing up of several water pumping stations in Israel's north are missed entirely as a contributing cause for war in 1967.
c) Also on pp 37 M&W criticize Israel for agreeing to withdraw according to UN 242 post 1967 only if it rec'd US military aid - M&W channel the consistent Arab approach of ignoring the other clause in 242 - "secure borders free from threats of force". As Israel's UN ambassador at the time Abba Eban once said - "What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain?". Given the UN withdrawal of its buffer forces on Nasser's orders Israel would need more than written guarantees. M&W are no historians and there is not even a cursory discussion of the content of the Sadat/Begin/Carter peace accords and why that formulation was successful and necessary.
d) On pp 92 they repeat the meme of "A land without a people for a people without a land" saying that it was an oft repeated Zionist theme - except it wasn't. Early Zionists were quite aware of an Arab presence in the Mandate area and discussed it openly as a potential ethical problem. The phrase itself was rarely used by Jews and had its origins prior to modern Zionism - in the writings of Christian travelers to the Holy Land in the 19th century! Indeed you find the phrase used constantly in the propaganda of anti-Zionist writers, not the other way around, which indicates the bias in M&W's use of sources. Ref: http://www.meforum.org/article/1877
e) Missing too is any mention that 40% of Israel's population consists of Jews who families were forced out of Arab countries. Whereas on pp 92 M&W state "(European) Crimes against Jews justify backing Israel's existence, but its crimes against Palestinians undermine its claim to special treatment." Poppycock. The book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History by Ibn Warraq and Andrew Bostom show that the Arabs both in and out of Palestine were up to their armpits in anti-Semitism ranging from pogroms fomented by the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1929 to a 1947 document showing an Arab League plan to dispossess the Jews of Arab countries of their rights, their property and their claims to citizenship. In 1948 the Palestinians had several choices - either to stand with their neighbours against the invading Arab armies whose stated intent was to eradicate the Jewish presence, run away so as to both avoid and facilitate the slaughter or to join in against the Jews. All of these choices were made and I think it behooves those who made these choices to accept the consequences of their actions. Yes, some Palestinians were driven out, but many were asked to stay. One must also remember that the Jews were ENTIRELY ethnically cleansed from areas in the Mandate held by the Arabs, and later they were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries as well. http://www.justiceforjews.com/
The second theme is an attempt to craft an image of "the Lobby" as a unified force while minimizing other factors. For M&W "the Lobby" is any pro-Israel group or individual that M&W happen to disagree with - a kind of enemies list that they hope the reader will lump together and then dismiss.
a) For the most part members of the Lobby are identified as being Jewish. This feeds into the canard that Jews by nature work together and put "Jewish" interests ahead of "American" interests. No other characteristic of members of the Lobby is given - so we don't learn what the religious affiliation of other players other potentially common factors. Which leads to the presumptive charge that M&W are in fact anti-Semitic. I think not, but only in the sense that a craftsman who makes burglar's tools is not a thief. They are upfront that they think the activity of what they label "the Lobby" is legitimate; that they are not talking about a "cabal" and that there is nothing sinister about the lobby's activities. The declamations ring about as hollow as Marc Anthony's protestations that "Brutus is an honorable man". While M&W deny , they leave open the implication for others to pick up on - and one can see this in some of the other reviews and comments here at Amazon.
b)When it comes down to Iraq M&W jettison most of what they consider the lobby and focus solely on a group of people identified as neocons. What they neglect to mention is that these neocons are simply policy advisors chosen by the people at the top to provide analysis and justification, but not to make the final decision. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: "The Buck Stops Here!". Ultimately it is the President who makes and is responsible, not his advisors. He chooses his advisors and whether or not to accept their advice.
c) It is instructive to view the debate on the book at the London Review of Books . http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ At about mid point watch Dennis Ross shake his head in frustration as Mearsheimer rejects his first hand account of what happened at Camp David. Missing too in the book is Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar's account of Arafat's apparent last minute rejection of Camp David which he describes as a crime against the Palestinian people, or former president Clinton's assessment 'I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you (Arafat) have made me one.'"
d) On page 142 M&W minimize the influence of the oil lobby by stating that their lobbying interests are limited to tax law and drilling rights. Because it would weaken their case M&W don't even mention Cheney's relationship with Halliburton which is an oil industry SERVICES company which profited obscenely from the rebuilding of Kuwait and subsequently Iraq. Nor do they tackle the influence of the various NATIONAL Arab oil companies which profit more from a higher price for oil than US Oil Companies and use the presence of US troops in the region to add security to their shipping routes and stability to their regimes.
e) M&W put forward the claim that "the lobby" was instrumental driving the US into war with Iraq. Martin Kramer successfully deconstructs the arguments and the timing and concludes that Israel did not advocate such a war but was instead convinced to lend its verbal support for it.
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_04_12.htm
Further Lawrence Wilkerson, who was a member of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and later Colin Powell's deputy chief of staff informs us that "The warning against an invasion of Iraq was `pervasive' in Israeli communications with the administration" , Wilkerson recalls. "It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens." http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051
With voices in "the lobby" on multiple sides of the issue and Israel itself opposed to the venture it is disingenuous of M&W to conclude that it had any influence one way or the other - had the White House and Congress not opted to go to war then "the lobby" would have been "blamed" too - so such an assignation is somewhat meaningless.
f)On pages 69, 316, 318 and 331 they site Zogby polls supporting their position that Israel has a negative image in the world. Of course the answer you get in a poll often depends on who's sponsoring the poll and what kind of a result they are looking at. What M&W fail to point out is that James Zogby is head of the Arab American Institute and also works as a senior analyst at his brother John Zogby's polling firm. The AAI is a pro-Arab Lobby group. Clearly this is a lobbying effort as well, completely legitimate, yet M&W err in not pointing out the motivation and the source.
M&W play fast and loose with other polls as well. On page 331 they cite two polls taken in late July 2006 gauging the reactions of American to Israel's role in the ongoing war in Lebanon. M&W focus on those who reacted negatively which is less than half, but there was something else going on at the same time - something called "fauxtography". Associated Press was showing images of Beirut showing a much wider expanse of destruction because they had been photoshopped. Later revelations showed that the message coming out of Lebanon had been carefully crafted and staged by Hezbollah who staged presentations of "damaged" Red Cross ambulances as well as other fakery for the press. http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/. Using a poll asking about American opinion in light of the revelation of these media manipulations and biased reporting would have been far more telling.
The last theme concerns itself with what M&W feel American policy in the Middle East should be.
a)On pp 60 M&W argue that the US and Israel are not actually partners against terror since Al Queda and the Palestinians are not actually linked and Palestinians have not attacked US targets - ignoring several cases where they did precisely that though not on US soil. They miss the point that the terrorism (ie: suicide bombings in Iraq) is similar in kind, that the techniques are the same and therefore there is a benefit in sharing knowledge on measures taken against this kind of warfare where unfortunately the Israelis have had far greater experience. The fight against terrorism is indeed a common interest contrary to M&W's conjecture and a reasonable policy objective.
b) However the elephant in the room that M&W miss is AFGHANISTAN. M&W have little grasp of modern American history or the goals of the United States post WWII. Their summary of these goals appears on page 337 and is short and inadequate. One should begin by looking at a map and note where America has gone to war: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq. The central themes of US foreign policy are: 1. containing America's two main ideological competitors: China and Russia. 2. Maintaining a playing field tilted in favor of American business interests. 3. Keeping additional ideological competitors from establishing themselves. These are the main goals of both the political branch of the U.S. government and the State Department. All else is secondary. Afghanistan makes perfect sense - it's not about getting the oil for Americans, it's about controlling the flow of oil to the competition.
c)On pp 91 M&W state that "Israel's democratic status is undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a "viable" state of their own" which is quite presumptive because it is not up to Israel to make a Palestinian state viable - it is up to the Palestinians. Chaim Weizmann once said that he would accept any size state at all - even as small as a postage stamp. Ben Gurion accepted a fragmented territory that few called viable, especially considering the hostility of the neighbors, but accept it they did. On the surface several other states would not be considered viable (Singapore for example) except for the skill and industry of their people. It is also apparent that Hamas and Fatah historically have had little taste for actually achieving statehood and the responsibilities that go along with it, rather they have viewed the exercise as a staging process leading to the destruction of Israel.
In terms of mideast policy It is primarily the Americans who have created this idea of Palestinian statehood and shaped the peace process in this direction bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians along - no lobby required at all.
d) M&W feel that the U.S. incursion into Iraq did not serve American interests. I agree, but neither did it serve Israeli interests. Saddam Hussein was effectively under control - there was no reason to upset the apple cart. M&W feel that Iraq has been a failure and are looking for scapegoats. For M&W the clock stops at the point of decision to invade. American policy goes further into the conduct of the war and into the goals of what America is trying to achieve afterwards. I would submit that the goal of the United States has been to prevent a mutually genocidal war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and that this goal has been largely achieved. I further submit that the US is committed to a rebuilt Iraq in the face of adversity from militants both domestic and foreign to Iraq and in this I hope it does succeed as a reconstructed and stable Iraq would be saving grace for America's image abroad.
e) In the final chapter M&W argue for a policy of "offshore balancing" whereby the United States pulls back its troops world wide, let local governments deal with their problems and instead try and influence foreign policy from afar. This is by no means a completely isolationist approach (cf: George Washington's admonition against foreign entanglements.) Further, if M&W would reflect on the US/Israel relationship, offshore balancing is precisely what is going on here - there are no US troops in Israel as there are elsewhere and the US uses Israel as a message to the Russians and the surrounding Arab states of US influence and power in the region.
In the end I cannot recommend this book. The gaps in logic and understanding are encyclopedic. M&W indicate that what they would like is a debate about how "the lobby" influences U.S. foreign policy without an understanding of what U.S. foreign policy is and what it should be. Rather than looking at what the goals of the policy should be they conclude that we should do no more than take a cue from adversaries such as bin Laden in formulating US policies by giving them what they want in the vague hope that if we give up our principles we will be more popular.
Excellent Read!! September 5, 2008
5 out of 8 found this review helpful
The book is a classic!!. It gives a detailed explanation of the currennt U.S policy towards Israel and Palestine..I was shocked to learn about how much influence the Israel lobby wields in the U.S Congress and senate..its a great book..I especially liked the way the authors organized the chapters....and the way the authors make their case and substantiate it with solid evidence and documentation...
Its about time Israel withdrew from the Occupied Territories and worked towards establishing a Palestine state...
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
