Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Mearsheimer and Walt do mention the money trail. They note that Israel spends most of its aid money without oversight. They are also correct to point out Israel can buy directly from arms dealers. What they don't point out is that because it receives this money up front, instead of in quarterly allotments, they can buy a lot of weapons and transfer them. In effect, Israel can make money on arms deals subsidized by US taxpayers. This is very useful for American arms dealers faced with embargoes. One glaring example of illegal transfers was recently reported in the press. No one has been able to explain how 5 helicopters sold to Israel turned up in the hands of Colombian drug lords. That's not the kind of thing that falls off the back of a truck.

Instead of talking about an "Israel Lobby" I think it is more useful to talk about "Likudniks" or "right-wing militarists" -- regardless of which country they are in. Leaving the "Israel lobby" poorly defined makes it possible to attribute any pro-Israeli position at any level of government to the workings of the "lobby"... that is a short step from conspiracy theories where evidence and the absence of evidence are both equally useful in proving a theory.

One clear example of this is their treatment of Dean's call for an active American role in brokering a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They first say Dean's "views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than the more moderate Americans for Peace Now" and then say "This is hardly a radical idea, but it is anathema to the Lobby, which does not tolerate the idea of even-handedness when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict." That's silly. AIPAC's views can't be anathema to the Lobby... AIPAC is the quintessential Israeli Lobby!

When it comes to media bias, the authors are correct that US media coverage is clearly tilted towards Israel. Krauthammer, Kristol, Kagan, Kissinger, and others are clear testimony to this fact. This bias can be demonstrated by anyone who seeks to compare the discussion occurring in Israel vs. the discussion in the United States. The difference between the two is the difference between an AM transistor radio and Dolby Surround Sound Stereo. I think there are several reasons for this. One is that you can't silence critics in Israel by calling them "anti-Semites" ...especially when they are highly decorated military commanders.

The authors correctly identify several military goals for the Israeli military. Toppling Saddam was certainly a major goal for them. As Ollie North once opined, "Saddam [was] willing to fight Israel to the last Palestinian." Likud in fact voted against EVER recognizing a Palestinian state in 2002 because it would act as a frontline outpost for Iraqi missiles. That actually was a rational argument...until the fall of Saddam. Now the main benefactors of belligerence are the people who profit from conflicts.

The authors treatment of regional resolutions is a bit thin and presumes that Arabs have no responsibility here. It is true that Barak's "generous" offer at Taba was to merely provide Bantustans. However, it is important to consider the maps of 1917, 1947, 1967, and 2000 to see that Palestinian violence is not a winning strategy. The fact is that zealots on both sides want to keep the fight going or they will lose their power base. That is good news for arms dealers.

The authors correctly identify the problems with extra-judicial executions that plagues Israeli politics. I think they could have done a better job putting this in a broader context. This is a problem that is eating at the heart of Israeli society. Although they don't mention him by name, you know things have gotten out of hand when Avi Dichter has to warn Ariel Sharon that a policy of extra-judicial executions is a bad idea. That would be like Negroponte telling Bush that death squads are a bad idea.

The authors are correct in pointing out this policy has failed to bring security to Israel and that criticism of it is squelched in the US. Although they don't make the connection, it is important to note this policy routinely violates the Arms Export Control Act and our silence makes us complicit. Don't expect that argument to gain traction with people making a profit on the chaos.

I have long been appalled that even so moderate and enlightened a leader as Eric Yoffie can be cowed into citing Talmudic justification for these policies. This is a guy who has lobbied against handgun violence in the United States at places like the Million Mom March. Once you cross that line where does it end? How do you identify threats to Israel's security? Do Israeli Prime Ministers qualify as legitimate targets? Apparently they do. The people who cite obsolete halachic precepts like din rodef and din moser as justifications for such mishegas have grasped a double edged sword by the blade. Nothing good can come of it.

Color me skeptical, but I think this confusion helps the arms dealers. When I look at the situation between Israelis and Palestinians, I continue to be convinced the high probability outcome is this: Concurrent Civil Wars. One on the Palestinian side. One on the Israeli side. One thing will stay constant... arms dealers will make a killing