Following the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, they write, "Israel's armed forces were not in a position to protect U.S. interests in the region," specifically U.S. oil supplies from places like Iran. By the 1990s "Israel was becoming a strategic burden."
So-called rogue states in the Middle East "are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests," they argue, and "the relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the U.S. to deal with these states."
"In fact," they say, "Israel is a liability in the war on terror."
Mearsheimer/Walt argue that the "Israel Lobby" has diverted U.S. foreign policy from "what the national interest would suggest." On Iraq, Syria and Iran, if the neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby had not pushed an aggressive militaristic policy, they say, U.S. policy "would have been more in line with the national interest." The authors never define that "national interest." They appear to argue for a "more temperate" policy in the region, in which "preventive war would not be a serious option."
They note differences within the Bush administration on Mideast policy, centered around former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Interestingly, their article drew praise from former Powell chief of staff Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, widely considered to be expressing views of Powell and others espousing the "realist" approach.
This article is an indication of significant disquiet in ruling-class circles. Perhaps it is even a trial balloon for establishment advocates of a significant shift in policy on Israel and Palestine. Differences are going increasingly public as the Bush administration's Iraq war debacle deepens, with potential long-term destabilizing consequences throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Some are no doubt concerned that the festering Palestinian statehood issue endangers U.S. capitalist class interests in the region. There are indications that some see advancing the interests of U.S. imperialism by building relationships with bourgeois political Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
If a U.S. policy shift helps lead to establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, that would be a momentous positive development. But the national interest as defined by the U.S. ruling class, whether of the neocon or "realist" variety, has little to do with the national interests of the overwhelming majority of the American people, Jewish and non-Jewish. It has little to do with the interests of the majority of Israeli and Palestinian people. Those interests revolve around the aspirations and struggles of the working class and its allies in all these countries.
Nevertheless, despite its shortcomings, if "The Israel Lobby" helps open up mainstream discussion on the above issues, it will have made a useful contribution. I hope it stimulates thinking among the left on the importance of encouraging and expanding Jewish participation in movements for peace and social justice. It should also lead to more attention to the role of anti-Semitism and new assessments of the class and political orientation of Jewish people in the U.S.
Susan Webb (suewebb@pww.org) is a member of the People's Weekly World editorial board.
So-called rogue states in the Middle East "are not a dire threat to vital U.S. interests," they argue, and "the relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the U.S. to deal with these states."
"In fact," they say, "Israel is a liability in the war on terror."
Mearsheimer/Walt argue that the "Israel Lobby" has diverted U.S. foreign policy from "what the national interest would suggest." On Iraq, Syria and Iran, if the neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby had not pushed an aggressive militaristic policy, they say, U.S. policy "would have been more in line with the national interest." The authors never define that "national interest." They appear to argue for a "more temperate" policy in the region, in which "preventive war would not be a serious option."
This article is an indication of significant disquiet in ruling-class circles. Perhaps it is even a trial balloon for establishment advocates of a significant shift in policy on Israel and Palestine. Differences are going increasingly public as the Bush administration's Iraq war debacle deepens, with potential long-term destabilizing consequences throughout the greater Middle East and beyond. Some are no doubt concerned that the festering Palestinian statehood issue endangers U.S. capitalist class interests in the region. There are indications that some see advancing the interests of U.S. imperialism by building relationships with bourgeois political Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.
If a U.S. policy shift helps lead to establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, that would be a momentous positive development. But the national interest as defined by the U.S. ruling class, whether of the neocon or "realist" variety, has little to do with the national interests of the overwhelming majority of the American people, Jewish and non-Jewish. It has little to do with the interests of the majority of Israeli and Palestinian people. Those interests revolve around the aspirations and struggles of the working class and its allies in all these countries.
Nevertheless, despite its shortcomings, if "The Israel Lobby" helps open up mainstream discussion on the above issues, it will have made a useful contribution. I hope it stimulates thinking among the left on the importance of encouraging and expanding Jewish participation in movements for peace and social justice. It should also lead to more attention to the role of anti-Semitism and new assessments of the class and political orientation of Jewish people in the U.S.
Susan Webb (suewebb@pww.org) is a member of the People's Weekly World editorial board.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
