North East Stop The War Coalition Discussion Forum

General Category => South Tyneside Stop the War => Topic started by: John Tinmouth on November 27, 2014, 12:38:43 PM

Title: Bully Boys II - Mearsheimer And Walt's Book On The Israel Lobby
Post by: John Tinmouth on November 27, 2014, 12:38:43 PM
SOUTH TYNESIDE STOP THE WAR COALITION


BULLY BOYS II:
THOUGHTS ON MEARSHEIMER AND WALT’S BOOK ON THE ISRAEL LOBBY

An ideology that divides the world into those who are worth more and those who are worth less, into superior and inferior beings, does not have to reach the dimensions of the German genocide to be wrong.
Amira Hass, Israeli Journalist

--------------------------------------

There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed.
Golda Meir, former Israeli Prime Minister.
Extract from John Pilger’s book Freedom Next Time, heading to his chapter ‘The Last Taboo’, discussing the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

--------------------------------------

Sometime in the late 1950’s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. "That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast". As neither Jack nor I was an anti-Semite (unlike his father and my grandfather) we took this to be just another funny story about Truman and the serene corruption of American politics.

Unfortunately, the hurried recognition of Israel as a state has resulted in forty-five years [now sixty] of murderous confusion and the destruction of what Zionist fellow-travellers thought would be a pluralistic state - home to its native population of Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as a future home to peaceful European and American Jewish immigrants, even the ones who affected to believe that the great realtor in the sky had given them, in perpetuity, the lands of Judea and Samaria. Since many of the immigrants were good socialists in Europe, we assumed they would not allow the new state to become a theocracy and that the native Palestinians could live with them as equals. This was not meant to be. I shall not rehearse the wars and alarms of that unhappy region. But I will say that the hasty invention of Israel has poisoned the political and intellectual life of the USA, Israel’s unlikely patron.
Gore Vidal, in the foreword to the first printing of Israel Shahak’s book Jewish History, Jewish Religion.

--------------------------------------





Part I:
Background: STSTWC’s Position, Anti-Semitism, Zionism, The History Of Palestine


This article seeks to investigate the issues surrounding Mearsheimer and Walt’s book on The Israel Lobby. Because the issue is so highly emotive, it is necessary first of all to set out South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition’s position, and to consider both the nature of anti-Semitism, and of Zionism. It is also necessary to examine the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition’s Position
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition is, like the national Stop The War Coalition, just that - a coalition. All of its founding members are secular. Though none are right-wing, their politics range from liberal with a small ‘l’, via Old Labour, to Marxist in about equal proportions. They include a Briton who was born in Iran and came here as a young man (he is also a liberal and stood against Miliband at the last general election - they say here in rock-solid Labour South Shields that, if Labour were to put up a monkey it would win by a landslide – and Miliband duly won). They also include a British Jew (who is also a Marxist and a pacifist). Several of the founding members regularly go out and distribute anti-racist leaflets in areas where a roughing-up is always a possibility, which is probably more than can be said for most of those so-called liberals and others (often Jewish) who attack anyone who criticises Israeli policy. We strongly support the Palestinian cause, not because we love Palestinians and hate Israelis, but for justice, because the Palestinians have first been dispossessed of their land, and then have long been brutally oppressed by the Israeli state. Furthermore, a just settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would bring peace and security to the region, and thus greatly benefit, not just the Palestinians, but also the Israeli people themselves (as opposed to the Zionist Israeli government). We are not anti-Semitic, though we are strongly anti-Zionist.

Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism is a complex subject, but some quotes from Michael Neumann’s book The Case Against Israel may be apposite:
It is also useful to peruse M & W on the so-called ‘new anti-Semitism’ – alarmist claims about a resurgence of virulent anti-Semitism - which is alleged (invariably by Zionists and their apologists) to be abroad, especially, they say, in Europe:

Neumann’s is the major point. Of course it is necessary to be always vigilant, and extreme Jewish sensibilities on the matter are understandable. But, as M & W point out, “Supporters of Israel, in fact, have a history of using fears of a ‘new anti-Semitism’ to shield Israel from criticism.” These objectionable tactics are referred to in detail below, in the section headed ‘The Lobby - Objectionable Tactics’.

Zionism
Historical Zionism – that is, Zionism before the creation of the state of Israel - can be defined as a project by Jews from outside Palestine to inhabit a Jewish area in Palestine. Neumann again: "Having a project to inhabit a certain region in no way entitles you to wield the power of life and death over its current inhabitants, or for that matter to give them a choice of submission or departure."  He goes on “Since your project is illegitimate, it may be resisted just as fiercely as any other project that gives someone, illegitimately, the power of life and death over your existence.” Historical Zionism involved supporting this Zionist project without regard for the rights of the people who were there in the first place, the Palestinians, as the murderous history of the Zionist project referred to below amply demonstrates. What then, can current Zionism mean – that is, Zionism since the creation in 1948, by murderous violence, of the state of Israel (a de facto state – its legitimacy is another matter)? Current Zionism, therefore, can only be defined as similar continuing support for post-creation Israel without regard for the legitimate and human rights of the people who were there in the first place – the Palestinians. Thus, anyone who now supports Israel without regard for the rights of the Palestinians is a Zionist (or an apologist for Zionists), and, since the Israeli state currently ignores Palestinian rights, it follows that it itself is a Zionist state unless and until it changes its policies. But, as the history referred to below demonstrates, the Israeli state is also a Jewish supremacist state, a racist state. A Zionist, therefore, (whether or not he or she is Jewish – many of them are) is a supporter of such a state, and is therefore a racist. Zionism is thus an oppressive, racist creed which should be resisted by all people who care for justice and human rights for all. It is vital that it be carefully distinguished from both the notions of Jewishness, and of the people of the state of Israel. It is also even more vital that any attempt by Zionists to confuse the three different notions – Jewishness, the people of the state of Israel, and the Zionist cause – for their own malicious purposes, be similarly resisted by all people who care for justice and human rights for all.

The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict – A Brief History
There is one further task to carry out before examining the issues raised by Mearsheimer and Walt’s book. We need to examine the history of Israel (and thus of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), since this is the root cause of the problem. This has already been done in an article entitled “A Brief History Of Modern Palestine: A History Of Israel And The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, which we have already distributed. For those who do not have copies, the article is available on South Tyneside STWC’s website, www.northeaststopwar.org.uk – at the site, just click on ‘Forum’, then select ‘South Tyneside Stop the War’, then select the article. The history ends with the Israeli assault on Gaza in December 2008 - events since then to the present date are set out below.

The long-planned and savage 22-day assault on Gaza - the Israeli army, the fourth largest army in the world, plus the (American-equipped) Israeli air force, against the light weapons of the Palestinian resistance fighters of Hamas, began in the last tottering days of the ardently pro-Israeli Bush administration. It ended with Israel’s declaration of a ceasefire on 17th January, just prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration as the new president of the United States. It had killed around 1400 Palestinians, and injured more than 5,000. Unsurprisingly, given the balance of forces, there were only 13 Israeli deaths – the usual kill ratio of many Palestinians for each Israeli.

Israel was accused of serious war crimes by numerous groups, including the UN, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and even Israeli groups. These include the use of white phosphorus against civilians, the use of human shields by the Israeli army, the deliberate targeting and killing of civilians (including by drones), and the killing of medical rescue units. The issue is unlikely to go away. More sinisterly, it has emerged that a booklet, approved by the army’s chief rabbi, was issued to soldiers preparing for the Gaza offensive. This document, bordering on racist incitement, talks about the necessity of cruelty against the enemy, and dehumanises and delegitimises the Palestinians and their claims. Israel Shahak, in his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, similarly reported years ago on the racist effects of Orthodox Judaism, prevalent not just among Israeli politicians (and particularly Likud), but within the Israeli army, affecting the army’s attitude towards the Palestinians. So much for Israeli ‘purity of arms’.

The Israeli siege of Gaza, commenced more than two years ago, continued after the assault ended, and persists to this day – Palestinian torment goes on. Its real purpose, like that of the assault, was to bring down Hamas by coldly and quite deliberately causing death and malnutrition, and physical and mental suffering to one and a half million Palestinians in an act of collective punishment which the oppressors mistakenly calculated would turn the population against Hamas. Conditions are dreadful. Large areas have been reduced to rubble, and infrastructure and much of private industry has been destroyed. Many thousands of people remain displaced, living in tents amongst the debris, or forced to stay with relatives. The Israeli overlords control the borders and refuse to allow reconstruction materials in, or adequate food supplies. Medical services cannot handle a traumatized population battered by siege, bombardment from land and air, renewed siege, the killing of family and friends, living in poor conditions on inadequate rations with, for many, precarious access to water and power. Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, Palestinian land continued to be stolen amidst settler and Israeli army violence.

The new Obama administration indicated from the outset its intention to settle the Israeli-Palestinian question. However:





Part II:
Mearsheimer And Walt’s Book, And The American Background

Mearsheimer And Walt’s Book
We can now examine Mearsheimer and Walt’s book, and the American background. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt (subsequently referred to as M & W) are two distinguished American academics.  Their original paper and article in March 2006, and subsequent book The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy in September 2007, generated much heat and controversy. They argue that a very powerful lobby of staunchly pro-Israel groups, think tanks, institutions and individuals, many of them Jewish but also including sympathetic gentiles (who include Christian Zionists), and with neoconservatives prominent amongst them, unduly influences America’s Middle East foreign policy in ways that the lobby considers to be favourable to Israel. The result, they say, is an extraordinary degree of financial and political support for Israel, which, they contend, cannot be justified either on strategic or moral grounds - in fact, they consider that foreign policy has thereby been distorted in ways detrimental to American interests, and which are also in fact damaging to Israel’s real interests.

The Israel Lobby
The Israel lobby is a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape US Middle East policy in a pro-Israeli direction. It is in no sense a unified movement with a central leadership, and the individuals and groups that make it up sometimes disagree on specific policy issues. The boundaries of the lobby cannot be identified precisely – there are individuals and groups whose position is hard to classify.

The lobby has a “core”, which includes AIPAC, WINEP, and the ADL. The bulk of the lobby consists of Jewish Americans and Jewish organizations. The elements of the lobby comprise:
M & W quote J.J. Goldberg on the lobby’s desire that American Jews discuss Jewish issues in an inconspicuous way: “All these [Jewish lobby] organizations came to the same conclusion: American Jews had the right to discuss issues freely, but only within discreet forums outside public view.”

M & W are careful to point out that the Israel lobby is not a cabal [their word] or conspiracy, and that it operates in the open [but see the paragraph above] and proudly advertises its own clout. They are also careful to stress that its operations are no different from those of other interest groups. However, they say, what sets it apart is the unusual degree of power of those groups and individuals which comprise it, and its extraordinary effectiveness. It is easy to infer that its extraordinary effectiveness is because of its unusual degree of power.

The Operation Of The Lobby
Before examining the operation of the Israel lobby, we can:
The Operation Of The Lobby In The Political Sphere
Strategies
M & W state that the groups and individuals who make up the lobby pursue two broad strategies to encourage steadfast support for Israel. One of these is to exert significant influence on the policy-making process in Washington, and is discussed here. To influence the policy-making process, M & W allege, the lobby helps get sympathetic individuals elected or appointed to key positions. It wants uncritical support for Israel to be the ‘smart’ political choice. To this end, the lobby tries to shape perceptions and options so that many key leaders willingly favour the lobby’s positions, and puts pressure on US leaders who might nevertheless be tempted to take an independent view

Influence On The U.S. Congress
M & W assert that a major plank in the lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in the U.S. Congress, to the point that Israel, remarkably, is largely immune from criticism. Unlike virtually all other areas of policy, where lively debate is the norm, “where Israel is concerned, potential critics fall silent and there is hardly any debate at all.” They give as an instance a hearing on the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process on February 14th, 2007, by a sub-committee in the House of Representatives. Testimony was sought from three witnesses, all of whom were “central players in the lobby” (involving AIPAC, WINEP and the right-wing Middle East Forum). “No critic of Israel, much less a Palestinian or Arab-American was brought in to offer alternative views”. The authors quote M.J. Rosenberg, from a “moderate pro-Israeli group that actively supports a two-state solution” (the Israel Policy Forum): “This was a hearing about two sides of a conflict where only one side was allowed to speak.”

Some key members of Congress are Christian Zionists, such as former Majority Leader Richard Armey (who said ‘my No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel’ – not America, as M & W point out). Tom DeLay was Armey’s successor as Majority Leader (he said that he was ‘an Israeli at heart’)

There are Jewish senators and representatives who work to make US foreign policy support Israel’s interests. We note that, for the 111th Congress, the Jewish Virtual Library website currently lists 44 Jewish members of Congress, 13 out of 100 senators and 31 out of 435 in the House. Thus, the Jewish community is considerably over-represented in both Senate and House – Jewish members make up 8% of Congress, whereas the Jewish community makes up a little over 2% of the population.  M & W report that, in 2006, a record number of Jewish Americans were elected to the House and Senate. They note that some of these legislators are ardent defenders of Israel, and that the chair of the subcommittee described above was Gary Ackerman (D-NY), “another avid backer of Israel”, while the chair of the larger Committee on Foreign Affairs is [was] Tom Lantos (D-CA), “who has no rival on Capitol Hill in his devotion to Israel. As one former AIPAC leader put it, Lantos ‘is true blue and white’ ”)

Congressional staffers can tilt legislation in a pro-Israel way – they provide policy options for their employers. M & W quote Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC: “There are lots of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill] ... who happen to be Jewish, who are willing ... to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness ... These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators ... You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.” Representatives from lobby groups sometimes directly help Hill staffers draft legislation, provide talking points that legislators can use publicly, help write letters that legislators send one another on their positions, draft and circulate open letters designed to put congressional pressure on the executive branch.

AIPAC: At The Core Of The Lobby
M & W, after pointing out that lobbying groups of all types provide a ‘legislative subsidy’ to sympathetic lawmakers by providing direct help as described in the paragraph above, then consider AIPAC (at the “core” of the Israel lobby): “Not only does every member of Congress receive AIPAC’s bi-weekly newsletter Near East Report, its personnel are also available to help staffers when issues affecting Israel arise. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called upon to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes.’ In other words, AIPAC inserts itself directly into the legislative and policy-making process with considerable frequency ...”

M & W state that it is AIPAC that holds the key to influence in Congress, and that this is a fact widely acknowledged by politicians from both parties. They quote:

AIPAC: Its Tactics And Operations
They attribute AIPAC’s success largely to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda and to punish those who do not, mainly through its ability to influence campaign contributions – AIPAC makes sure its friends get financial support so long as they do not stray from AIPAC’s line. Many individuals who bankroll AIPAC are important political contributors in their own right. AIPAC also helps connect political candidates to other donors and sources of funds. AIPAC screens potential candidates and arranges meetings with potential donors and fund-raisers, and provides information to pro-Israel PACs. M & W quote the historian David Biale: “The American Jewish ‘Israel lobby’ has developed ... into one of the most sophisticated and effective lobbying organizations in the United States Congress. It has done so in part by developing a national network of Jewish Political Action Committees for contributing funds to congressional candidates based on the criteria of support for Israel.” And AIPAC President Howard Friedman: “AIPAC meets with every candidate running for Congress. These candidates receive in-depth briefings to help them completely understand the complexities of Israel’s predicament and that of the Middle East as a whole. We even ask each candidate to author a ‘position paper’ on their views of the US-Israel relationship – so it’s clear where they stand on the subject.” The authors note that Friedman’s description of AIPAC’s modus operandi is consistent with testimony from other political figures:

M & W report that AIPAC monitors congressional voting records and makes these records available to its members so they can decide which candidates or PACs to support, and that candidates or incumbents who are seen as hostile to Israel can expect AIPAC to guide campaign contributions to their opponents. They note that “internal AIPAC documents acquired by the Washington Post in 1988 revealed that its deputy political director was actively ‘trying to help raise money for several candidates in the 1986 Senate.’ ” Also, “the Wall Street Journal reported in 1987 that ‘despite AIPAC’s claims of non-involvement in political spending, no fewer than 51 pro-Israeli PACs – most of which draw money from Jewish donors and operate under obscure-sounding names – are operated by AIPAC officials or people who hold seats on AIPAC’s two major policy-making bodies. Although the federal Election Commission ruled that there was ‘insufficient evidence’ to conclude that AIPAC controlled the network of pro-Israel PACs, the belief that AIPAC helps guide contributions remains widespread.” Notwithstanding the above, M & W state that “despite its name, AIPAC is not a political action committee and does not officially endorse candidates or give money directly to their campaigns.” George Sunderland (Sunderland is the pen name of a senior congressional staffer), in his article Our Vichy Congress in The Politics of Anti-Semitism referred to above, goes further, and asks “... Why is AIPAC different? For one thing, it is a political action committee that lobbies expressly on behalf of a foreign power; the fact that it is exempt from the Foreign Agents’ Registration Act is yet another mysterious ‘Israeli exception.’ ” And the effect? :

How much money? M & W go on: “The Center For Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-partisan research group that tracks campaign contributions, has identified roughly three dozen pro-Israel PACs active in recent elections. In the 2006 midterms, these groups gave more than $3 million to candidates from both parties. Between 1990 and 2004, reports the Economist, pro-Israel groups contributed nearly $57 million to candidates and parties, while Arab-American and Muslim PACs contributed slightly less than $800,000. When combined with individual contributions to particular candidates and donations given to the national party organizations themselves, pro-Israeli forces wield considerable electoral clout. According to CRP’s Steven Weiss, ‘If you are a candidate and you get the pro-Israel label from AIPAC, the money will start coming in from contributors all over the country.’ ”

AIPAC: The Effectiveness Of Its Tactics On Congress
M & W say that “there is little doubt over the potency of these tactics” and go on to give a number of instances:

M & W note that AIPAC and pro-Israel PACs focus on more than getting Israel-friendly candidates elected. They have also had notable success turning politicians into steadfast supporters of Israel:

M & W state that “if electoral pressure and persuasion don’t work, AIPAC has been known to threaten politicians who appear reluctant to follow its lead. In 2006, for example, congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN), a liberal with a solid pro-Israel voting record, nonetheless opposed the AIPAC-backed Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act. The measure, which sought to impose draconian measures on the Palestinian Authority in the aftermath of the election of Hamas, was also opposed by the State Department, the Catholic Bishops, and other pro-Israel groups like Americans for Peace Now and the Israel policy Forum. Nonetheless, an AIPAC lobbyist told McCollum’s chief of staff that the representative’s ‘support for terrorists will not be tolerated’, a threat that led McCollum to demand an apology from AIPAC chief Howard Kohr and to bar AIPAC representatives from her offices.”

George Sunderland, in his article Our Vichy Congress in The Politics Of Anti-Semitism mentions the following cases where Congress’s investigatory apparatus, he alleges, was not used, or was muffled:

AIPAC: Its Clout In Congress
Back to M & W. “The basic message”, they say, “is clear: any senator or representative who crosses AIPAC is playing with fire ... its ability to affect a politician’s electoral prospects is well-known.”:
“AIPAC’s clout”, as M & W note, “also explains why attendance at its annual Policy Conference has become a command performance for prominent politicians. Speakers at the 2007 Policy Conference included Vice President Dick Cheney, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). The previous year’s speakers included Cheney, Boehner, UN Ambassador John Bolton, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Representatives Roy Blunt (R-MO), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Artur Davis (D-AL), Bill Pascrell (D-N), and Robert Wexler, as well as former senator and [then] presidential hopeful John Edwards. Speakers in other years have included have included President George W. Bush, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, former House Speakers Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and Newt Gingrich, former Majority Leader Richard Amey, and a bevy of prominent pro-Israeli pundits.” M & W say that “it is hard to think of any other lobbying organization that is wooed as strenuously by politicians in both parties.”

M & W continue: “To seal the deal, an AIPAC sister organization, the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), funds free congressional trips to Israel itself. These junkets burnish a legislator’s pro-Israel credentials and facilitate fund-raising, and also expose him or her to the policy preferences and basic worldview of Israel’s leaders. This situation helps explain why about 10 per cent of all congressional trips overseas are to Israel, even though it is but one of nearly two hundred countries in the world. The Center for Public Integrity reports that AIEF spent nearly $1 million on these visits from January 2000 to mid-2005. Not surprisingly, AIPAC and other Jewish groups lobbied hard – and successfully – to make sure that the new ethics rules enacted after the Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay scandals did not interfere with these visits.”

Concerning congressional trips, George Sunderland’s article Our Vichy Congress states that a perusal of the May 6th, 2002, Jerusalem Post reveals the following headline: “Visiting Congressmen Advise Israel To Resist Administration Pressure.” He continues: “the Israeli newspaper chronicles the pilgrimage of a group of Congressional wardheelers to the Promised Land, carrying with them a copy of the resolution of support for the Israeli government that passed Congress by a vote of 352-21 with 29 abstentions. The delegation’s leader, Rep. James Saxton of New Jersey, displayed a copy of the resolution to reporters, which he said they wanted to ‘hand deliver’ to the Israeli people.” Sunderland does not mention whether this particular trip was free or not.

“The bottom line”, say M & W, “is that AIPAC, which bills itself as ‘America's Pro-Israel Lobby’, has an almost unchallenged hold on Congress. One of the three main branches of the American government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. Open debate about U.S. policy toward Israel does not occur there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world”:
   
AIPAC: Its Influence On The Executive
M & W note that “American presidents are not as sensitive to pressure as Congress is, and most of them have taken positions that Israel or the lobby opposed at one time or another. But such instances are becoming increasingly rare, even though Israel’s strategic value has declined and some of its actions (such as the continued effort to colonize the Occupied Territories) are at odds with stated U.S. policy.” M & W consider congressional pressure on the executive branch when it takes actions that are considered to be not in Israel’s interest: “When that happens, the president or cabinet official is likely to get a hard-hitting letter from one or both houses of Congress, signed by most of its members ...”:
M & W note that “influence over the executive branch derives in part from the impact Jewish voters have on presidential elections”. M & W state, “Despite their small numbers in the population (less than 3 per cent), American Jews make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties”, and they continue:

M & W state that the lobby’s goals, obviously, are served when individuals who share its perspective occupy important positions in the executive branch. While stressing that this desire is no different from that of other lobbies and interest groups, they note:

The Operation Of The Lobby To Ensure Favourable Public Discourse
Strategies
M & W state, as noted above, that the groups and individuals who make up the lobby pursue two broad strategies to encourage steadfast support for Israel. One of these is to exert influence on the Washington policy-making process, and has been discussed above. The other is for the lobby to “go to great lengths to ensure that public discourse about Israel is favourable.”

M & W continue: “... Its [the lobby’s] various elements do this by constantly reaffirming Israel’s strategic value, by repeating one-sided accounts about Israel and its founding, and by defending Israel’s actions in policy debates. The goal is to convince the public that America’s and Israel’s interests and values are one and the same.”

They go on: “At the same time, groups in the lobby try to marginalise anyone who criticises Israeli policy or challenges the ’special relationship’, and try to prevent that person’s views from getting a fair hearing in the public arena. To do this, the lobby sometimes employs heavy-handed tactics to silence critics, accusing them of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.”

And, further, they say, “Channeling public discourse in a pro-Israel direction is critically important, because an open and candid discussion of Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, Israeli history, and the lobby’s role in shaping America’s Middle East policy might easily lead more Americans to question existing policy toward Israel and to call for a relationship with Israel that more effectively serves the U.S. national interest.” Given Israel’s history as we have referred to it above, and even taking into account that M & W are American (they describe themselves as ‘American realists’), this is a remarkably restrained comment in the circumstances. However, this controlled, even muted, language, adds authenticity to their book – no one can accuse them of going over the top.

The Media: Managing The Debate
M & W examine the American media, noting that “Pro-Israel forces are well aware that dominating discussions about the Jewish state is essential to their agenda”, and that “these efforts do not always succeed, of course, but are still remarkably effective.” They make the following points:

The Media: Lobby Tactics To Manage The Debate
M & W note the tactics of the Israel lobby to influence the media:
Political Think Tanks: The Lobby’s Influence
M & W next examine, in a section headed ‘Think Tanks That Think One Way’, political think tanks, noting that:
Academia: The Lobby’s Policing Of Academia
M & W then deliberate, in a section headed ‘Policing Academia’, the lobby’s campaign to mold the debate about Israel in academia. They note that here the lobby “has faced the greatest difficulty”, because of adherence to the “core” values of intellectual freedom and  a deep-seated commitment to freedom of speech. It is another unedifying tale where, “predictably, the most important organization in the effort to win back the campuses was AIPAC”. 

M & W conclude that “pro-Israel groups have fought a multifront battle – against students, professors, administrators and the curriculum itself – to shape discourse on campus. Their efforts have not been as successful in academia as they have been on Capitol Hill or even in the media, but their work has not been in vain ... there is less criticism of Israel on college campuses today than there was five years ago.”

The Lobby - Objectionable Tactics
The Lobby’s Resort To Objectionable Tactics
In a section headed ‘Objectionable Tactics’, M & W consider behaviour of the lobby which they judge to be unacceptable in a democratic society. They are careful to first state that “As we have repeatedly emphasized, lobbying on Israel’s behalf is wholly legitimate, as are overt [our italics] efforts to shape public perceptions by participating in public discourse about matters relating to Israel.” M & W continue:
Reaction In America To Mearsheimer And Walt’s Book
Controversy And (Standard) Accusations Of Anti-Semitism
The furious and vitriolic reaction in the American media to M & W’s article (in March 2006) and subsequent book (in September 2007) is itself a perfect demonstration of the lobby’s readiness to use objectionable tactics against its critics, and considerable proof of the extensive influence of the lobby in the mainstream media, which their book had discussed.

The Atlantic magazine, which had commissioned the original article, got nervous and withdrew from publishing it. Tellingly, another US publisher could not be found, and the article subsequently appeared in the London Review of Books. The US mainstream media, according to Robert Fisk (who characterises them as “as pro-Israel, biased and gutless as the two academics infer them to be”), “did not know whether to report on their conclusions, or to remain submissively silent.” He cites “the New York Times, for example, which “only got round to covering [the article] in depth well over two weeks after the reports publication, and then buried its article in the education section on page 19.”

The article and subsequent book provoked considerable criticism and accusations of anti-Semitism:

Walt himself said in an interview after the book’s publication: “It is striking, and it is probably something one would predict, having read our book, that virtually all of the mainstream reviews in the United States have been either somewhat negative, or harshly negative. And many have included many personal attacks on us – not all, but the vast majority.”

Mearsheimer made a telling point about those who wish to attack the detailed arguments of people like himself who attack the lobby: “But that is not because we were on thin ice, it’s because the arguments on the other side are so weak. They can’t beat us with facts and logic, so they misrepresent our arguments and then attack the arguments that we did not make.”

M & W’s article and subsequent book provoked a wider debate about the limits of permitted criticism of the state of Israel. The distinguished British-born historian Tony Judt said: “All Jews are silenced by the requirement to be supportive of Israel, and all non-Jews are silenced by the fear of being thought anti-Semitic, and there is no conversation on the subject.”

The Effect Of The Israel Lobby On American Foreign Policy
America: Israel’s Great Benefactor
In a chapter headed ‘The Great Benefactor’, M & W examine in detail the remarkable levels of U.S. economic aid, military assistance, and diplomatic support to Israel. It is worth reading this chapter in full to completely appreciate the fine details of this extraordinary story. Two subsequent chapters entitled ‘Israel: Strategic Asset or liability?’ and ‘A Dwindling Moral Case’ examine these questions. Briefly, they conclude:

American Foreign Policy: The Lobby’s Damaging  Influence
The entire second part of M & W’s book is devoted to an examination of some of America’s major relationships in the Middle East, and the effect of the lobby on these, particularly in more recent years. There are two important points to note. First, their book was published in September 2007 and therefore their account is not up-to-date. Second, they naturally write as Americans, and therefore from an American point of view – they describe themselves as ‘American realists’– and it would be fair to say that they do not write from a left-wing point of view. That being said – and while some like ourselves would differ over various emphases and assumptions, we would not differ too significantly over their overall historical conclusions, and not at all with their contention that the effect of the Israel lobby’s influence has been detrimental to America’s interests, and to Israel’s real interests . In an introduction to the second part, M & W note that:

Before looking at M & W’s examination, we can note in passing the observation made in Jeffrey Blankfort’s article on The Israel Lobby and the Left referred to above:  “There is, as yet, no record of a single Israeli soldier shedding a drop of blood in behalf of US interests, and there is little likelihood one will be asked to do so in the future. When US presidents have believed that a cop was necessary in the region, US troops were ordered to do the job ... in 1991, President Bush told Israel to sit on the sidelines.”

In the chapter headed ‘The Lobby Versus The Palestinians’, M & W examine America’s relationship with the Palestinians, and the effect of the lobby on that relationship. It is important to note that their account begins only in 2001, and that the long history of the Zionist project which first created Israel and then sustained it, which we have referred to above, is therefore missing. They conclude:

In the following chapter, headed ‘Iraq, and Dreams of Transforming The Middle East’, M & W discuss the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the wider scheme, and the lobby’s involvement, and conclude:

The next chapter, headed ‘Taking Aim at Syria’: M & W discuss  the relationship of the U.S. with Syria, and the lobby’s involvement, and conclude:

In the chapter headed ‘Iran in the Crosshairs’, M & W discuss America’s relationship with Iran, and the lobby’s input, and conclude:
Lastly, in the chapter headed ‘The Lobby and the Second Lebanon War’, M & W discuss Israel’s second invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006, and the lobby’s involvement. After discussing the invasion in detail, they conclude:

M & W conclude that “Until the lobby begins to favor a different approach, or until its influence is weakened, American policy in the region will continue to be hamstrung to the detriment of all concerned.”

What Is To Be Done?
Combating The Lobby: What Is To Be Done
In the final chapter, entitled ‘Conclusion: What Is to Be Done’, M & W identify what U.S. policy ought to be, and discuss how the lobby’s negative impact might be mitigated or modified. They conclude that the obvious way to reduce the lobby’s influence:





Part III:
A Call For Peace In Palestine, And Messages To Those Involved

A Call To Everyone – Don’t Be Fooled By Zionist Myths
Zionist Myths
There are a number of myths which are propagated by Zionists and their apologists. Don’t be fooled by them. Those detailed below consist of our own interpretation of ideas principally taken from Michael Neumann’s book The Case Against Israel, Uri Avnery’s article Manufacturing Anti-Semitism, and the late Edward Said’s article Dignity, Solidarity and the Penal Colony, both articles in The Politics of Anti-Semitism. They do not necessarily reflect the thinking of these writers.

False Accusations Of Anti-Semitism
Zionists, as fervent and uncritical supporters of Israel, often, as noted above, make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics.

Zionist Misuse Of The Holocaust
Ardent pro-Israelis frequently bring up the Holocaust in order to deflect criticism. This is a dishonest tactic, it should fool no one, and it should be resisted:

Zionist Myths: Israel’s “Humane” Occupation
Forget talk of Israel’s ‘humane’ occupation – it is mere propaganda, which most people in the world now comprehend. There are the massive human rights violations described in the Brief History Of Modern Palestine referred to above; there are the war crimes; there are the assassinations; there are the terrible effects of assault and siege; there is the degradation, suffering and want that is the daily lot of the Palestinians. Neumann again: “… after the Nazi era, it is small comfort indeed to know that Israel could have done even worse”.

Zionist Myths: Palestinian Violence (In Contrast To Israeli Peacefulness)
Forget also the argument of some impassioned Zionists that the Palestinians opted for violence long before the occupation – so they did, but it is necessary to consider both past, pre-1967 violence related to resistance to the creation of Israel, and current violence related to opposition to illegal Israeli settlement, two responses to two different situations. Past Palestinian violence was a valid resistance to the colonialist project for the creation of Israel described in the Brief History Of Modern Palestine referred to above. Current Palestinian violence as also depicted in that brief history is, as discussed in detail below, the response of a people without other options, forced to do so by Israeli settlement and other actions. In both cases - the Zionist project, then the Israeli state - initiated the violence by their actions, causing a justified Palestinian response. The charge against the Palestinians is untrue - it is a shoddy attempt to muddy the waters and deflect blame from Israel.

Zionist Myths: Unfathomable Arab/Palestinian Hatred
Zionists sometimes talk of Arabs and Palestinians eternally plotting Israel’s destruction, consumed with a burning hatred that will not die (they’ll always hate us, so peace is impossible, why bother to try). This is a shabby excuse normally trotted out to sabotage any moves towards peace. As regards the wider Arab world, it should be pointed out that peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan have held. On the basic point, of course many Palestinians and Arabs do hate Israelis, and this is unsurprising given the history of the conflict. As Neumann says: ”What bred Palestinian hatred of Jews and Israelis was just like what bred Israeli and Jewish hatred of Palestinians”. The hatreds were a normal consequence of war and conflict, not the cause of the conflict. One may say that the Zionists and the Israeli government exacerbate Palestinian/Arab hatred against ordinary Israelis in their pretence that they represent the entire Jewish people, Israelis and the Diaspora. As to undying hatred, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that there is something historically unique and different in kind about current Arab/Palestinian hostility and hatred of Israel, brought on by war and conflict, which has never happened in the world before. Consider Allied hatreds against Germany and Japan after World War II – while some may persist in a very few (very old) old men, current generations of British and American children seem to be entirely free of it – Germans are the same as other Europeans, and Japanese just like other Asians. Given the history of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, it will take time to abate, but surely it will abate. It is hysterical nonsense to claim otherwise, used by Zionists with base motives. But, in any case, if the ‘unquenchable hatred’ theory is true, then improved security through Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories (as argued for in detail below) is even more desirable. Neumann in addition makes another point which he considers even more important – after a conflict, often when there is continued animosity there is virtually no violence – he gives as one example the likelihood of the Vietnamese or Cambodians or Laotians wreaking vengeance on the Americans for those who died in Indochina. As he says; “It is not just that hatred dissipates; it is also that it often ceases to be a danger.”

Zionist Myths: Palestinians Can Just Leave
The myth that the Palestinians can just leave if the occupation is so bad. There is a Zionist myth, widely propagated, that the Palestinians can just pack up and leave if they don’t like the brutal occupation in the Occupied Territories – there are, it is said, some 40 million fellow Arabs in neighbouring countries to which they can go. For sheer Zionist effrontery this takes some beating - the thief is grumbling that the victim should stop complaining and just get out – why should the Palestinians do this? In fact, as Neumann demonstrates in great detail in the chapter of his book on The Settlements, this is not a Palestinian option – they have nowhere else to go. Neumann argues that, though their fellow-Arabs are truly sympathetic to their cause, there are limits, practical and otherwise, to their generosity. In particular, a refuge in Jordan, as is most often cited, Neumann describes as “fatuous” in its impracticality, the equivalent of the USA taking in 180 million people.

Zionist Myths: It’s Not Israel’s Zionist Policies That Are Making Israel Unsafe
Myths that deny that it is Israel’s Zionist policies which are making Israel unsafe. The myth is that Israel is a safe haven for all Jews, and must therefore be protected at all costs. In his article Manufacturing Anti-Semites in The Politics of Anti-Semitism referred to above, the Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery speaks of Zionist myths he grew up with, and which are now turned upside down. One is that Israel is a haven for all the Jews in the world – Jews, the myth goes, live in perpetual fear that a cruel persecutor will arrive, as happened in Germany. Israel is the safe haven, to which all Jews can escape in times of danger. Then, says Avery, Saddam [Hussein] came along and proved the opposite. All over the world, Jews live in safety, and only in one place on the planet are they threatened: Israel. Avery says that many Israelis are already planning to escape to communities in the Diaspora – end of myth. What Avnery implies is that Israeli policies are making Israel unsafe

Zionist Myths: It’s Not Israel’s Zionist Policies That Are Feeding Anti-Semitism
Myths that deny that it is Israel’s Zionist policies which feed anti-Semitism. Another Zionist myth, Uri Avnery relates in his article in The Politics of Anti-Semitism, is that the Diaspora creates anti-Semitism – everywhere the Jews are a minority, and a minority inevitably attracts the hatred of the majority. Only when the Jews gather in the land of their Forefathers and constitute the majority will anti-Semitism disappear throughout the world. Nowadays, the very opposite is happening: the state of Israel is causing the resurrection of anti-Semitism all over the world, threatening Jews everywhere. The Sharon government [he was writing at that time] is a giant laboratory for growing the anti-Semitism virus and exporting it to the whole world, and anti-Semitism is now riding on a great wave of opposition to Sharon’s policy of aggression. One could disagree slightly with Avnery, and say that perhaps, for some, Israeli policies have led to anti-Semitism, but perhaps for others, it has just led to revulsion and anger and opposition to Israel and its policies towards the Palestinians. Either way (and this is Avnery’s point), it is not good for the state of Israel. His message to the Diaspora: break the habit of automatic identification with everything the Israeli government does – let your conscience speak out. We agree.

Zionist Myths: Israel’s “Right” To Palestine
Apologists for Israel often make spurious claims of Israel’s “right” to Palestine (the Holy Land):

Zionist Myths: Palestinian Terrorism Prevents Peace
The myth that peace cannot be obtained because the Palestinians will not give up terrorism:

Zionist Myths: Palestinians Don’t Want Peace
The Zionist myth that Palestinians would never accept any peace offer. Peace offers, they say, have been made to them in the past, but could not be agreed upon because the Palestinians are committed to the destruction of Israel. Therefore, peace is unattainable. The suspicion is that this Zionist claim is made because it is the Zionists who do not want peace – they want it all, including the West Bank:
Zionist Myths: Claims Of Common Values
Zionist claims of common values. Nowadays, the American alliance with Israel is typically defended on nebulous grounds: Israel is “our friend”, it “shares our values”, it is a staunch ally in the “war on terror”. These phrases disguise the fact that, in contrast to most alliances, there is virtually no confluence of American and Israeli interests:

There are a number of reasons why the alliance should end:

A Call To The Jewish Diaspora, And All People Of Goodwill
Speak Out Against Israeli Oppression And Intransigence, And Take Action
Israeli intransigence has allowed an occupation of the West Bank, and (until recently) the Gaza Strip to drag on for more than 40 years, in which the Palestinian people have been savagely persecuted, and now appear to be slowly being strangled out of existence. In this situation, it is not enough for the Jewish Diaspora, especially in America, and indeed all Jews everywhere, to merely refrain from supporting Israel no matter what it does. All people of goodwill everywhere, including Israeli Jews and the Jewish Diaspora must speak out:
Action, too, is necessary. All people of goodwill can take part in boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns.

In April, an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Jeff Halper, a visiting Israeli peace activist, discussed some vital questions for the Jewish Diaspora everywhere. Extracts are reproduced here: “ … Diaspora Jewry uses Israel as the lynchpin of its ethnic identity, mobilising around a beleaguered Israel as a way of keeping the community intact … Israel cannot be held up as a voyeuristic ideal by people who, though professing a commitment to Israel’s survival … the vast majority … are not going to emigrate to Israel, actually need an Israel at conflict for their own community’s internal survival … Israel must change in ways David Ben-Gurion and Leon Uris never envisioned, even if that is hard for Diaspora Jews to accept … I can envision an Israel at peace …it is precisely such a normal state at peace with its neighbours that is so threatening to Jews abroad, because it leaves them with no external cause around which to galvanise … Diaspora Jews need to revalidate Diaspora Jewish culture (that Zionism dismissed as superficial and ephemeral) and find genuine, compelling reasons why their children should remain Jewish … Blindly supporting Israel’s extreme right-wing and militaristic policies is not the way to do that. Such uncritical support contradicts the very liberal values that define Diaspora Jewry, driving away the younger generation of thinking Jews … [the Diaspora] must let Israel go, get a (Jewish) life of its own, and return to its historical commitment to social justice and human rights. It may wish Israel well, but it must support an end to Israel’s occupation and a just peace with the Palestinians.”

A Call To The Israeli People- A Vision For Peace
A Call To The Israeli People – Act To Bring Peace To The Middle East
Michael Neumann’s book contains a vision for peace involving withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. The ideas which are detailed below consist of our own interpretation of his ideas. Though they are similar, they do not reflect his own thinking.

It has been argued in the section above headed ‘Zionist Myths: Palestinian Terrorism Prevents Peace’ that the Palestinians have no alternative but violent resistance.

It is often said that Israel also has no alternative other than a military response to such resistance; that Israelis and Palestinians are locked together in some fatal struggle. This is incorrect. Israel does have an alternative – unilateral withdrawal from all of the Occupied Territories, both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, since Israel does have this alternative, a military response to Palestinian resistance is not justified. Though an Israeli unilateral withdrawal is currently out of the question given the nature of the Netanyahu government, it is nevertheless discussed in detail below because of its insights and possibilities, and because governments change:
Over the years, you have elected a succession of governments, each one of which has been indifferent, to a greater or lesser degree, to the human rights of the Palestinians, and has in fact savagely persecuted them, and killed them in their thousands – your present right-wing government is no exception. Those governments have frequently used fear as a means of keeping the Israeli people in line. The consequences are:
A peaceful solution to the conflict with the creation of a Palestinian state (whether involving a prior unilateral withdrawal or not) would finally bring peace and true security to yourselves, the Palestinians, and the whole region. The long cycle of violence would end, and long-held hatreds on both sides would subside over the years. We urge those of you who are not Zionists to put the maximum pressure on your government to change course and help bring about a viable Palestinian state, rather than the poor collection of dependent Bantustans assembled in some pitiable non-state, which is what your Prime Minister envisages. Netanyahu’s solution, even if successfully forced on the Palestinians, won’t work because it won’t bring peace – the Palestinians just wouldn’t accept it, and the conflict would continue.

We stress again that we are not anti-Semitic, we are anti-Zionist. To all Israelis who are not Zionists, we hope that you too, can, like the Palestinians, live in peace and security.

To The New American Administration – Bring Peace To The Middle East
Stop Treating Israel As Special, And Demand A Viable Palestinian State
President Obama, newly arrived six months ago at the White House, carried the world’s hopes for a historic change in American policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During that time, he has done nothing of the scale and scope required to effect a viable settlement. If he had acted as though both sides in the dispute were equals – equal in terms of the moral rightness of their position, and, more crucially, equal in terms of their military strengths – then this would have been bad enough, since patently this is not the case. But he has done worse than this – while doing nothing to help the besieged Palestinians in Gaza, he has worried excessively over the security of the illegally-occupying power, the racist Israeli state, whose moral position, as witness the past and recent histories detailed above, is, to be plain, disgusting. Furthermore, he has done this knowing that the military strengths of the two sides are vastly disparate, due almost entirely to the past and continuing one-sided support of Israel by the United States itself - so that, without American help, the Palestinians will find it difficult to avoid a solution dictated by Israel – a state noted for its previous intransigence, whose current government is certain to be at least as awkward, unyielding, and prevaricating as Israel has ever been in the past. There are many who believe that this and all past Israeli governments, with the vision of a ‘Greater Israel’ (of undefined borders) in mind, have never intended that there be a viable Palestinian state, have never intended that (if they are forced to allow something) there be any more than the pretence, the façade, of a Palestinian state – not a state, not defensible, nothing - a mere collection of Bantustans entirely dependent on Israel for their very existence. Obama must have been very well aware of this special danger – yet his actions to date show that he has done nothing to avoid it – indeed, they seem designed, principally through his appointment of George Mitchell to carry out peace negotiations, to produce just such a pitiable, non-viable non-state for the Palestinians. Such a non-state will not bring peace, since the Palestinians (or significant sections of them) will not accept it. Therefore, the whole American peace effort, as currently constituted, is a waste of time.

The consensus among the various powers involved (as opposed to the Palestinians themselves) is a “two-state solution”; its essence (give or take some minor land swaps) is that Israel withdraws to its pre-1967 borders, and that the new Palestinian state is formed from the West Bank (currently occupied by the Israelis) and the Gaza Strip (currently under siege by the Israelis). The crucial point is that if the Palestinians were to accept this, then they would be accepting the loss of almost four-fifths (79%) of historic (mandate) Palestine on the practical, realpolitik basis that, whether legitimate or not, Israel is a de facto state whose existence and territory could very plausibly be disputed legally, but would be hard to dispute in terms of power, since such a dispute could only be by force and, thanks to America, Israel has very powerful armed forces. Thus, a two-state solution as envisaged, represents a substantial territorial loss to the Palestinians, and they cannot realistically be expected to bear any greater loss than this. Furthermore, anything less than the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip (the remaining 21% - for example, by excluding some or all of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank) would render a viable Palestinian state unfeasible in purely territorial terms – for what state worthy of the name could exist with islands of the territory of another state either embedded within it, or (alternatively) existing as spear-like projections into it. It follows therefore that, at a minimum, a future Palestinian state would require Israeli withdrawal from all of the illegal settlements on the West Bank. It is also essential, for the same reason, that there is a swift halt to the creation of any further settlements, and an absolute ban on any extension of existing settlements.

In such circumstances, it was entirely insufficient for Obama to appoint a special envoy, George Mitchell, to start peace negotiations with Israeli and Palestinian representatives. What was needed, and needed swiftly, was of such magnitude and scope that it could only be done by the President of the United States himself, namely a call to the Israelis to accept a two-state solution, with the proposed Palestinian state constituting, at a minimum, all of the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and an Israeli state constituting, at a maximum, of an Israeli state based on its pre-1967 borders. This could have been coupled with a further stipulation for satisfactory arrangements as to both Jerusalem, and the Palestinian refugees, a demand for the immediate end to all settlement activity, and a start on dismantling existing settlements. Finally, Obama should have told the Israelis that peace negotiations must begin without any pre-conditions for either side. He needed furthermore to issue a non-negotiable demand that the Israelis unconditionally end the siege of Gaza immediately. He should then have made it crystal clear to the Israelis that if they were not to accept these provisions within a fairly short period of time, then drastic US sanctions would follow – a withdrawal of all economic and military aid and diplomatic support, and, if that were not enough, a concerted US diplomatic effort to isolate Israel. All of this would have required a determined and hard-nosed stance towards Israel, which in turn would have meant taking on America’s pro-Israel lobby in an uncompromising way.

Obama has done nothing like this. What, in detail, then, has he done and not done? Most importantly, Obama has appointed George Mitchell as his special envoy to carry out peace negotiations between the two parties. Since he has not previously demanded that the Israelis accept a two-state solution, with the proposed Palestinian state constituting, at a minimum, all of the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, then any such negotiations can, realistically, only produce a Palestinian state with less than this, in the form of various settlements which the Israelis refuse to give up. That is, they can only produce, firstly, a territorial loss to the Palestinians which is greater then they can realistically be expected to bear, and secondly an area of land which, as noted above, is such as would render a viable Palestinian state unfeasible - a recipe for a non-state which will not bring peace. But what if the envoy were to prevent the concession to Israel of any of the existing settlements, or only such very minor settlements as made no practical difference? – then Obama may as well have stipulated at the outset the minimum Palestinian state depicted above. The only other possibility is significant concessions on settlements, and a Palestinian non-state as already described.

Furthermore, Mitchell himself is not the pro-Palestinian horror that the pro-Israel lobby hints at – indeed, he is to some extent one of their children. His details set out below raise considerable doubts as to whether he would prevent the retention of considerable areas of existing Israeli settlements in the west Bank:
In short, it appears that the situation which the Obama administration has set up appears likely, if nothing is changed, to produce a repeat of the past Clinton administration’s efforts – that is, will similarly dither (amidst detailed and time-consuming arguments) over which particular settlements can be retained, and which cannot, in the face of the inevitable Israeli procrastinations, and end up, like Clinton, cruelly prolonging Palestinian suffering for years, only to finally offer a pathetic and pitiful non-state, not viable, not independent, not a state, nothing – with the difference that this time Israel’s slow and cruel strangulation of the Palestinian people, so far advanced today, may by that time have been virtually completed – a genocide in slow motion.

Briefly, what else has the Obama administration failed to do, despite the massive economic, military, and diplomatic leverage they have over Israel?
Obama needs to do what he should have done in the first place, as noted above, that is:
As we have already noted in a previous article, the likelihood (some would say the near-certainty) is that Obama and his people in the Home Of The Brave and The Land Of The Free won’t have the bottle or the political will to take on the pro-Israel lobby and end America’s long-time and amoral support of the Israelis no matter what they do. His administration, like several previous American administrations, will persist in ignoring the human rights of the Palestinian people, and their continuing and brutal oppression at Israeli hands. Given the current American approach, as described above, there is a distinct possibility (again, some would say a near-certainty) that, like the avidly pro-Israeli Clinton administration of former days, Obama’s administration will similarly dither in the face of the inevitable Israeli procrastinations, haggling over this settlement or that settlement, and end up, as noted above, like Clinton, cruelly prolonging Palestinian suffering, only to ultimately offer a pitiful non-state – except that by that time Israel’s asphyxiation of the Palestinian people, so far advanced today, may by then be total – a genocide. If such a terrible end-game were to occur, the Americans would bear a heavy, not to say major, responsibility, since without their massive and long-term military and economic aid and diplomatic support, Israel’s expansionist wars, and its continuing illegal settlements, would not have been possible. Everyone knows that the Israeli air force consists of American planes, financed by America, with Israeli pilots (by contrast, the Israelis build their own tanks, although America still pays for them). The moral position of the Americans over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is now widely perceived throughout the world to be down there in the gutter with the Israelis. Unless they decisively change tack, American pretensions over human rights, freedom and democracy will be seen throughout the world for what they are – as so much bullshit.

To The American People
They’ve Never Told You The Truth – Otherwise, You Wouldn’t Unconditionally Support Israel
People such as ourselves are very often characterized here in the UK, by uncritical supporters of America (with an axe to grind), as anti-American. We are not – we are against the American administration in its present stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Governments, in America and elsewhere (and not least that of the UK) often act, to a greater or lesser degree, in a pragmatic, not to say cynically expedient way that considers only what they consider the realpolitik of the situation. Ordinary people, on the other hand, perhaps only because they remain uncorrupted by power, are more likely to act in a fundamentally decent way. We believe that the American people, if only they were told the truth about Israel’s history, both past and present, would exert irresistible pressure on the American government to change course, and end its zealous support for an Israeli regime which cruelly suppresses the Palestinians. Mearsheimer and Walt obviously believe the same thing (despite calling themselves ‘American realists’, they do look in detail at the moral aspects of the situation) – and, moreover, they believe that, even on realistic, self-interested grounds, America is harming its real interests (and those of Israel, too), by its amoral support for the Israeli state.

However, for the American people to act, they first need to know the truth about Israel’s past and current history, and this, as Mearsheimer and Walt make abundantly clear, is near to impossible given the skewed and untruthful version of the conflict, past and current, presented to them by the American media:
The American media, and their highly-paid stooges and front men, bear a heavy responsibility for what they have done. The British journalist Robert Fisk called them “as pro-Israeli, biased and gutless as the two academics [M & W] infer them to be”. He was right.

Nevertheless, we do believe that, even in America, the truth will out, and that the American people will then act.

The ‘Quartet’
Act Independently Of The Americans, And Press For Swift Action To Bring Peace
The Special Envoy to the Middle East for the ‘Quartet’ (the US, Russia, the EU, and the UN) is, of course, Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister. Blair owed his appointment as envoy to pressure from the previous American regime of George. W. Bush, who, together with the neocon clique around him, wanted someone to do their bidding. It is difficult, with Obama’s administration in place, to think of a more ill-suited person:
We should remember that the Quartet itself was set up under Bush to give the false appearance that, internationally, something was being done to help the Palestinians. It has been a Bush creature, and a singular failure, existing only as a cover for the Bush regime’s misdeeds. It might perhaps just be disbanded. But if it is not, and is rejuvenated under Obama, Blair must be summarily dismissed – he, like Bush, is a discredited has-been from a murderous past.

To The European Union
Take A Robust And Independent Line From The US, And Use Europe’s Leverage
Back in mid-2008, Jimmy Carter urged Britain and other European governments to split with America, describing the EU’s stance over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as "supine". He also noted the Quartet’s (and thus the EU’s) failure to criticise the Israeli blockade of Gaza: "To see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing". Carter said, on the prospect of Europe breaking away from the position of the United States: "Why not? They’re not our vassals. They occupy an equal position with the US." Carter also noted the Quartet’s/EU’s policy of not talking to Hamas unless it recognised Israel, renounced violence, and accepted previously-signed peace agreements. In short, the EU’s cringing stance was a carbon copy of Bush’s fervently pro-Israeli policy.

It will be recalled that a survey carried out in late 2003 in the then 15 member states of the EU found that nearly 60 percent of European citizens believe Israel poses the biggest threat to world peace. However, the European Union has never been notable for considering the opinions of its own citizens.

The EU continues to more or less slavishly follow the US line, this time of the new Obama administration, which, as noted above, is currently wholly inadequate to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are, however, some stirrings for change. Points to note:
The Europeans are not bondsmen of the Americans. The European Union needs to take a much more robust, and completely independent line (and why not poll its citizens again), and:

To The British Government
Act Independently Of The Americans, And Press For Swift Action To Bring Peace

Once upon a time, a Labour government would have had a sizeable portion of the parliamentary party who were almost automatically on the side of any oppressed peoples anywhere, and who could therefore be counted on to take the side of the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel. But that was in the time of Old Labour, when the party had a big heart. Today, with New Labour, that heart is more like a dried peanut, and the voices within the parliamentary party who support the Palestinians, though they still exist, are few and far between. 

It is therefore impossible to feel confident over the British government’s stance for a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Over the years, UK governments have something of a record of acceding to demands of the American superpower, sometimes more so, sometimes less. No one has been more subservient than former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who, by aligning the UK so firmly to the United States over the Iraq war, by doing so again (almost alone in the world) over the second Lebanon war, and by not acting firmly and independently over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has damaged the UK’s reputation around the world, and especially in the Arab and Islamic worlds.

The present New Labour government has links to prominent Jewish organizations here in the UK, to important Jewish donors to the party, and to strongly pro-Israeli media organizations, in a less than fully transparent, and disturbing echo of the ‘Israel lobby’ in America. None of this will make it any easier to assert a strong and independent line from America’s position in any attempt to resolve the Israeli-Palestine dispute.

David Miliband’s position as Foreign Secretary is unfortunate. Miliband is Jewish, has relatives who are (illegal) settlers in the West Bank, and has even visited them. Miliband’s pronunciations since the Gaza assault betray an evident desire to toe the (new) American line. Although Miliband is said to be ‘progressive’ over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Obama line, while not as ardently pro-Israeli as that of Bush, still leans very definitely towards the Israelis, and for the most part, Miliband does not contradict it. Miliband has, valuably, stressed the importance of an Arab league solution, pointing out that the Palestinians “simply do not have enough on their own to offer the Israelis to clinch a deal”. He has also said “We will not allow Israel to perpetuate the occupation in the West Bank under the guise of economic gestures of good will.” And he has stated that talking to Hamas was the “right thing to do” – but that Egypt and other parties were best placed to do this. On the other hand, prior to the Gaza ceasefire, Miliband stressed that a ceasefire would involve finding ways to curb the smuggling of weapons to Hamas. Just like Blair, then – it’s all the fault of the Palestinians. And he takes the American line on Hamas: “Hamas have shown themselves over a number of years ready to be murderous in word and deed … Their motif is ‘resistance’ and their method includes terrorism.” And he apparently swallows the ‘wonderful Israeli democracy’ line: “Israel is [in contrast to Hamas] … a thriving, democratic state … As a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, Israel’s best defence is to show leadership in finding a political solution …” And, on the volume of recent UK trade union resolutions on Palestine, he said that the government was “dismayed that motions calling for boycotts of Israel are being discussed at trade union congresses and conferences this summer.”

Nevertheless, even if he could achieve feats of impartiality which are not given to most of us, that is not the point. He will not stand up to the Americans over their inadequate approach as described above, and he will never be perceived by the Palestinians as unbiased. He is an apparatchnik, a ‘yes’ man who first toed the Bush/Blair line on Israel-Palestine, and now toes the Obama line. Miliband needs to be replaced by someone who can take a strong line against the Americans, and who will be unbiased in his judgements on the dispute.

A fair resolution of the conflict, where the UK is seen to have taken a proper consideration of the Palestinian side, and is not automatically pro-Israeli, will help considerably to restoring the UK’s reputation in the Arab and wider worlds. The UK should press the Americans to take the actions recommended above in respect of the US, and similarly press the European Union to take the actions recommended above in respect of the EU.

To The Palestinians – We Wish You Well, And You Have Our Support
It’s Your Choice In The End – We Wish You Well
As Michael Neumann indicates in his book, a peace based upon Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories to the 1948 borders does not represent a just solution. Full justice would require the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel (the “one-state” solution), as well as a full right of return, with compensation, for Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. The realpolitik, ‘consensus’ two-state solution referred to in detail above represents, if accepted, a considerable forfeiture by Palestinians, giving them only 21% of historic [mandate] Palestine. Then there is the “one-state solution” already referred to, which currently seems wildly unrealistic for decades. Then there is the two-state solution which makes provision for an eventual one-state solution some distant time in the future. Intermediate prescriptions are also thinkable, if impractical - why not the original UN partition plan adopted as resolution 181? Why not a revised UN partition which takes relative populations more fairly into account? And so on. The following points need to be made:


John Tinmouth
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition
Tuesday, 11th August, 2009[/list]