"The Israeli Lobby," the new article by renowned professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, takes the blurring of academic objectivity to a new level while simultaneously delivering a blow to standards of academic discourse. And while their article is well-written and does contain elements of truth, its ideological rhetoric (describing the "stranglehold" of the Israel Lobby on Congress) and lack of academic foundation must force each of us to question these authors' decision to prioritize form over function.
Students enrolled in "Intro to International Relations" here at Tufts read the works of both of these professors. However, considering this latest item, let's hope our IR students do as Mearsheimer and Walt say, and not as they do.
In 84 pages, "The Israel Lobby" gives four reasons American government justifies support of Israel. "1) It is weak and surrounded by enemies 2) It is a democracy 3) The Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment and 4) Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries." To the professors' credit, the reasons they give do, for the most part, accurately reflect the sentiments of the pro-Israel lobby.
But they have left out the keystone in the arch, which (ironically) is one of theoretical expertise on which Mearsheimer and Walt pride themselves. And one which proves that U.S. support of Israel is practically always in the United States' best interest.
Concisely stated, U.S. support of Israel inoculates Western ideology into the Arab world. Israeli technology, capabilities and ultimately ideas are inevitably spread to Arab states as partnerships (with Egypt and Jordan, for example) begin to flourish. And that's a good thing to support if those Arab states are otherwise engaged in funneling money to terrorists who fly planes into buildings in your country.
Even if in the short term, individual actions by Israel damage U.S.-Arab relations overall, having Israel as an outpost of Western-ism is good for the United States (though I do not necessarily claim it is good for human rights or peacemaking efforts in the region - self-interest can be an ugly thing).
Perhaps more importantly, this cultural exchange occurs on the front lines of the "Clash of Civilizations" we so often hear about, and having it as such prevents the conflict between the East and West from coming too close to home. Sure, Israel causes anger, but what American politician would rather have the anger of the Arab world directed at her constituents when she could have them directed at Israel? U.S. support of Israel causes anti-American sentiments, but it's the comparatively better choice (for America, at least) to have any anger it causes be diffused thousands of miles away.
In a nutshell, Israel keeps the fight close to the enemy's region, and in so doing, keeps it away from us so that attacks like Sept. 11 are rare and do come as a shock. Meanwhile, at the height of the intifada, Israeli forces were responding to over 100 suicide bombings a week.
But Mearsheimer and Walt negligently ignore this esoteric yet fundamental reasoning which forms the basis of U.S. strategy in the Middle East. So while their article can hardly be accused of constructing a straw man argument, perhaps a more appropriate metaphor is that of the tin man. Mearsheimer and Walt's article has all the physical components of the argument, but lacks the heart of ideology from which the use of these parts stems. Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.
Now considering that the points Mearsheimer and Walt do mention are made clear and backed up, I would be willing to let them off the hook. But let's try to discern the ultimate point of the article.
As members of the tough-guy, realist school of IR thought which sees nations as single entities fighting for superiority in the balance of power, we would expect the authors to attribute American pro-Israel sentiments to, say, some imminent flux in the balance of power in the Middle East. Or perhaps, the effect of super-state religion on interactions between states. Take your pick.
But rather, Mearsheimer and Walt default to what realists consider the holding-hands-kumbayaa view of IR theory: liberalism. Peoples don't go to war, states go to war. The U.N. will solve the world's problems.
By asserting that individuals and organizations are the actors of IR, rather than states, Mearsheimer and Walt in effect are abandoning the very theories which they subscribe to...and, well...wrote. In fact, any graduate of Intro to IR at Tufts will recall both these authors from their class syllabus.
So for what end is the article written? The power of AIPAC and its constituencies is hardly a secret. Nor is the article consistent with the most basic tenets of Mearsheimer and Walt's philosophical paradigms which they would use for academic dissertation. Clearly, the purpose of the article is something non-academic.
"The Israel Lobby" is an explicit attempt by Mearsheimer and Walt to discuss their political beliefs rather than expound on any theoretical basis. Which maybe is OK, but if it is an article trying to effect social change, how effective can it really be? AIPAC will stay powerful, people will resent that such an article was written, and ultimately no change will occur.
"The Israel Lobby" fails not because it is controversial or sometimes inaccurate. Rather, it is because the article is an editorial trying to be a scholarly work. Ultimately, it succeeds at being neither.
Scott Weiner is a sophomore majoring in international relations.
