An underhanded defense of ‘even-handedness’

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” the infamous paper written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt under the auspices of the Kennedy School at Harvard, is a big, fat, slow pitch. It is almost impossible to find a paragraph in the paper that does not contain a mischievous omission or a quotation ripped from its original context.

I won’t dwell on how it distorts the recent history of the Middle East, trades in age-old conspiracy theories, or refuses to acknowledge how average Americans might possibly, just possibly, favor the moral claims of a pint-sized democracy over the medieval despots who surround it.

Instead, let’s look at how a paper purportedly written by “realists” actually undermines those who paved the way for a smaller, more secure Israel and a Palestinian state.

Let’s start with their account of the political fallout when Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more “even-handed role” in the Arab-Israeli conflict.” M&W point out, accurately, that Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) denounced the remark as “irresponsible” and that top Democrats in the House signed a letter criticizing Dean. They also quote our own Washington correspondent, James D. Besser, who wrote in 2003 that “anonymous attackers…are clogging the e-mail inboxes of Jewish leaders around the country, warning — without much evidence — that Dean would somehow be bad for Israel.”

M&W defend poor Dean: “He had merely suggested that to ‘bring the sides together,’ Washington should act as an honest broker. This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate even-handedness.” What they don’t mention is that the anonymous attackers were widely thought to be Republican partisans, who hoped to score points with Democratic Jewish voters. Or that Lieberman was Dean’s rival for the Democratic nomination. Or that the Anti-Defamation League described the e-mail as “intense” and “venomous.” No, according to M&W, there’s no such thing as politics when it comes to the “Lobby”; it’s a single-minded monolith that squashes dissent.

Were Dean’s remarks considered controversial in pro-Israel circles? Undoubtedly. Many pro-Israel activists believe, as they have every right to, that in a world that seems increasingly inclined to appease the Arab street, the remaining superpower should favor Israel in its diplomacy. M&W would argue that this is evidence of the power of the “Lobby.” But they don’t mention the times when various presidents employed even-handedness. Just weeks before the Dean brouhaha, the Bush administration reduced loan guarantees to punish Israel over the security fence and the expansion of settlements, and deputy assistant secretary of state David Satterfield stated that Israel had “done too little for far too long” to foster peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

When politicians pander to a voting bloc, M&W call it evidence of the power of the “Lobby.” But when leaders actually behave in ways that irk the pro-Israel camp, that is evidence of…nothing.

At the same time, M&W give no credit to the diplomats and negotiators who actually employed “even-handedness” as a strategy for nearly a decade.

M&W lump together every purportedly pro-Israel policy analyst or diplomat who ever worked in the White House. They include the recent crop of neoconservatives — Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith — as well as Clinton-era negotiators like Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, and Aaron David Miller. Never mind that the Clinton team supported the Oslo peace process and favored the creation of a Palestinian state — and twisted Israeli arms in the process. According to M&W, “they did so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel.”

I won’t dwell here on whether that is even a true statement. What I want to ask, as someone who also supported Oslo and has written in these pages that the United States must sometimes play the honest broker, just what do I or folks like me have to do to please folks like M&W? I can name dozens of Jewish leaders and scores of Israeli politicians who pushed hard, and successfully, to transform the idea of a Palestinian state from a communal taboo to conventional wisdom. That was a breathtaking paradigm shift, and there are still many AIPAC stalwarts who revile the idea of sharing the Land — and have the most to gain from widespread dissemination of M&W’s polemic.

Caroline Glick, a right-wing columnist for the Jerusalem Post, already took the bait. “If it does nothing else, Walt and Mearsheimer’s screed proves the absolute stupidity of the claim that Israeli land giveaways and expulsions of Israelis from their homes increase international sympathy and support for Israel,” she wrote. “Israeli demonstrations of international, political, military or cultural weakness open it up to ever escalating demands and expressions of animosity.”

I suspect you’ll hear more sentiments along these lines — that there is nothing one can do to please those who hate Israel, so Israel ought to stop trying.
But that assumes that the whole point of disengagement from the Palestinians is to win Israel friends in Harvard Yard, as opposed to disentangling Israel from a dangerous relationship that can only lead to more blood, more tears, more moral compromise.

But that will be a harder point to make now, if the theories of Mearsheimer and Walt gain traction. M&W probably believe themselves to be champions of Middle East peace and advocates of positions, like “even-handedness,” that they insist are not allowed to be heard in the halls of power. The sad fact is that their fantasies about a pro-Israel conspiracy only weaken the politicians and diplomats who have worked hard to change the realities of the Middle East for the better.

Did you take the NJJN “Next Big Think” survey? Go to the NJJN website and click on the “NBT” button. We’ll post the results next week.

Comment | Print | Subscribe