The Israel lobby - MIA

by Jonathan Rosenblum
The Jerusalem Post
May 21, 2009

In their 2007 book The Israel Lobby, Profs. John Mearsheimer and
Stephen Walt argued that there exists a loose coalition of groups 
that attempts to steer American policy in a pro-Israel direction 
at a high cost to American national interests. Mearsheimer's and 
Walt's definition of pro-Israel was so broad and their sense of 
how injurious Israel's existence is to America so deep that, 
in their telling, the "Israel lobby" is both all-powerful and 
all-inclusive. Nevertheless, at the center of Mearsheimer and 
Walt's "Israel lobby" are American Jews - the villainous neo-cons 
and the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC chief among them. 

The irony is that American Jews are demonstrably innocent of putting 
Israel's interests first - at least if its interests have anything to 
do with how they are defined by the overwhelming consensus of Jews 
living here. 

While a vast majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to cede a 
good deal of the West Bank in return for peace, the experience of 
the last 15 years has convinced them that peace cannot be obtained
without a dramatic reformation of Palestinian society. From the 
standpoint of the Israeli consensus, the Obama administration's 
obsessive mantra about the necessity of Israel declaring its support 
for the "two-state solution" is misguided, for it sends the wrong 
messages to both Israelis and Palestinians. 

By focusing on what Israel must do, that mantra ignores what it has 
already done and the lessons learned from its past actions. 
Withdrawals from the West Bank, southern Lebanon and Gaza resulted in 
their becoming launching pads for suicide bombers and rockets aimed at 
civilians. Those withdrawals did not even improve our international 
standing. 

The Focus on our next step ignores those never taken by the 
Palestinians - i.e., moving one iota from any of their positions as of 
the outset of Oslo. And it conveys the message that nothing is expected 
of them in the future, unlike the road map, which made their oft-
promised end to incitement and terrorism preconditions for further 
negotiations. 

Statehood, not peace, has become the watchword of American policy. 
And  to that end, the Obama administration has indicated a willingness 
to impose a solution. National Security Adviser James Jones recently 
conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" 
would be formulated by the US, EU and moderate Arab states, with Israel 
and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. On a happy 
note, he allowed that we would "not be thrown under the bus." That same 
week the chief US arms negotiator called for us to sign the Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Treaty - a clear break with a 40-year understanding 
with the US and a clear indication of how nasty the pressure might get. 

The theory of an imposed solution is that the final contours of a 
settlement are already well known, so it might as well be now. Even if 
the former proposition were true, the intention of the parties and 
their ability to perform would still be relevant. The Palestinians 
cannot run a state - certainly not one that Hamas would quickly take 
over - nor do they seek to. Human rights activist Bassam Eid declared 
after the Hamas-Fatah civil war in Gaza, "We do not deserve a state." 
Fatah prefers the present kleptocracy to a state. Statelessness allows 
Palestinians to attack Israel without being held responsible and so 
remain the world's favorite mendicants. 

Meanwhile, the contrast between the Obama administration's urgency 
with respect to the Palestinian-Israel tract and its lackadaisical 
approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions could not be starker. The linkage 
of Iran to progress on the former is backward. No more than a year 
remains to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Peace will not first come 
to the region, when, after 61 years, there is still no Palestinian 
leader who can even recognize our right to be a Jewish state. 

The Sunni states fear a nuclear Iran much more than us, and they are 
saying so. They will support an alliance against Iran because it is 
in their interest to do so, as long as they believe America will act 
decisively and not leave them to Iran's tender mercies. 

WHAT HAS been the response of American Jewry and the vaunted Israel 
lobby? Silence. President Barack Obama's popularity among American Jews 
remains sky high and rising. Delegates at the recent AIPAC convention 
dutifully lobbied Congress for the two-state solution. Against whom, 
one wonders, was this feared group lobbying? 

The overwhelming American Jewish support for Obama demonstrates how 
far the perspectives of Israeli and American Jews have diverged. 
For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. 
For American Jews the simulacrum of peace, in the form of a treaty, 
any treaty, is primary. An ad in a recent Hadassah Magazine shows an 
attractive child over the caption: Will he be the one to lead Israel 
to peace? That caption wrongly presumes that it is within our power to 
bring peace, and its corollary: A failure to achieve peace is our 
fault. 

For many American Jews, an Israel without peace is misbegotten, 
not worth the scorn it engenders in The New York Times and on Ivy 
League campuses. Daniel Gordis records, in his important new book How 
Israel Can Win a War That May Never End, being asked by an American 
Jewish friend: "Why has Israel given up hope? And with no genuine 
chance for peace, why forge on?" It is left to Gordis's teenage 
daughter Talia to set their visitor straight: The purpose of Israel 
is not to achieve peace with the Arabs, however devoutly such peace 
might be wished for. We have not given up hope, just on hope for 
peace in the near future. 

American Jews remained largely quiescent during the Holocaust, in part 
because of their adulation of president Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 
who could do no wrong in their eyes. Stephen Wise, the most influential 
voice in American Jewry, could not overcome his worship of FDR to 
challenge the latter's position that nothing could be done to save Jews 
other than win the war. (David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews 
searingly details how much could have been done.) To avoid embarrassing 
or pressuring the president, in August 1942 Wise sat on a telegram from 
Gerhard Riegner of the World Jewish Congress detailing plans to 
exterminate 3 million to 4 million Jews in German-controlled Europe, 
until pressured by the Orthodox and Revisionist Zionists to do 
something. 

American Jews are besotted again. This time the object of their 
affections is Obama, who has consciously fashioned himself the new FDR. 
And a little matter like Israel will not cool their ardor. Obama, like 
president Bill Clinton before him, has proven that a Democratic 
president can sell American Jewry any policy toward Israel, as long as 
it is packaged in sufficient expressions of concern for its well-being. 

The Israel lobby of Walt's and Mearsheimer's febrile imaginations 
never existed. And never has that been so obvious as today.