Soccer Dad

Canaries at ha'aretz

"Everything reminds Milton Friedman of the money supply. Everything reminds me of sex, but I try to keep it out of my papers." ~ Nobel Laureate Robert Solow

Everything reminds the editors of Ha'aretz that settlements are the root of all evil, and they find every excuse to put it in their paper. If Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer had written a treatise on wool futures in Australia, the editors of Ha'aretz would have responded with an editorial explaining why this required throwing thousands of Israelis from their homes.

As it happens that wasn't the subject of the paper but rather the undue influence of "the Lobby" on American foreign policy. In A Warning from America the editors of Ha'aretz warn

Even if the article involved an attempt to blame the Jews for developments that are unconnected to them, and even if the comments are rooted in increasing opposition to the war in Iraq and an attempt to search for hidden motives for what the writers see as an American foreign policy failure, it would be irresponsible to ignore the article's serious and disturbing message.

The conclusion that Israel can draw from the anti-Israel feeling expressed in the article is that it will not be immune for eternity. America's unhesitating support for Israel and its willingness to restrain itself over all of Israel's mistakes can be interpreted as conflicting with America's essential interests and are liable to prove burdensome. The fact that Israelis view the United States' support for and tremendous assistance to Israel as natural causes excess complacence, and it fails to take into account currents in public opinion that run deep and are liable to completely change American policy.

So they see the articles as a sign that America's (political) tolerance with Israel is running out. And how should Israel solve that problem? You guessed it

Instead of strengthening the Jewish and Israeli lobby and causing it to influence American policymakers to support Israel unreservedly, the Israeli government must understand that the world will not wait forever for Israel to withdraw from the territories, and that the opinions expressed in the article could take root in American politics if Israel does not change the political reality quickly. The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza did improve Israel's standing in the world, especially in Europe, but that is not enough.

Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's plan to attempt to get widespread international support for the political program he will present, which is based on a significant withdrawal in the West Bank and the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers, is a wise and necessary step.

(Incidentally not everyone at Ha'aretz agrees with this. One dissenter, Ari Shavit ominously predicts in Olmert's Arrogance

If Ehud Olmert is elected prime minister and implements his convergence plan, then in September 2010 the Palestinians will have sovereignty over the entire Gaza Strip and some 91 percent of the West Bank, and all this without recognizing Israel and without ending the conflict.

Thus will the national Palestinian movement fulfill the objectives of its wars and obtain a full strategic resolution against the State of Israel. The history books will record Olmert's unconditional withdrawal as the unconditional surrender of Zionism. No, it will not be the end. But it will be the beginning of the end. While relying on big money on one side and big journalism on the other, Olmert will lead the country to the beginning of the end.

What bothers Shavit isn't just that Israel gets no approval from the Palestinians, but what that means

Since Olmert is establishing this country without first assuring its demilitarization, it will have significant military capability. Since he is establishing it without removing the right of return from the agenda, it will have a destructive claim against Israel, whose legitimacy is recognized by the international community. The combination of political sovereignty, military power and a commitment to demanding return will transform Olmert's Hamas state into one that will endanger the very existence of the State of Israel.

Apparently he doesn't believe that expelling thousands from their homes right now will help anything. Though he apparently believes that it will be a reasonable course of action in the future.)

The editors of Ha'aretz are making some of the same mistakes that Walt and Mearsheimer make.

A recent Gallup poll showed that 59% of the American public favored Israel while 15% favored the Palestinians. Actually nothing much surprising about that. For about as long as I've seen, the proportion of Americans supporting/favoring Israel has outnumbered those supporting the Palestinians by about 4 - 1. The only difference has been the actual percentages. It's also sometimes 40 - 10, 45 - 11, 32 - 8; but usually with a significant percentage favoring neither or both. Now those other categories are down.

I find the numbers disappointing but the context encouraging. If Americans were getting an accurate feel of the Middle East from their media, I believe there'd be a lot less uncertainty and that the ratio of those favoring Israel would likely be closer to 10 - 1. In other words despite the biased negative impression that Americans get from the media, a strong proportion of them still favor Israel. It should also be noted that American Jews actually are less supportive of Israel according these polls than are American non-Jews. (Two demographic groups that Gallup has identified in the past as being especially pro-Israel are Southerners and church-goers. Presumably that means those who worship regularly.)

So at least on grass roots level, support for Israel remains strong and that translates to support from the political class. That would be the case with or without AIPAC.

Additionally Ha'aretz views the Walt/Mearsheimer paper as a sharp break from the past. It isn't. Daled Amos demonstrated that the ideas used by the pair have been around for awhile. And perhaps have been gaining currency. What's shocking about the paper is not what was said but who said it and how shamelessly they put it. It doesn't signal the significant change that Ha'aretz thinks that it does.

Most Americans - both among the governed and the governing - are more concerned with Israel's continued existence and safety than they are about creating another Islamic republic right now. In fact I would argue that those who promote the negative image of Israel hurt Israel more than any Jew living in Yehuda or Shomron.

The Hashmonean isn't much impressed with the editorial either.

Mere Rhetoric punctures the idea that Walt and Mearsheimer are brave.

Jewish Current Issues notices something missing from the sources they used to make their arguments.

Powerline cites Jewish Current Issues and links to quite a few other sites.

SerAndEz quotes approvingly from the Wall Street Journal.

IRIS does too.

Best of the Web today has more on the "realism" of Walt and Mearsheimer.

Deja Vu investigates Mearsheimer's writing and discovers that he isn't a big fan of democracy. (Though he apparently benefits from academic freedom.)

Technorati tags: John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, the Lobby, Israel, AIPAC.

Related articles about Israel in Soccer Dad.
Related articles about AIPAC in Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at March 23, 2006 5:48 AM | TrackBack