III Religion and Politics - The Double Irony

by Sara

Just over the past day, a new set of reviews by professional diplomatic Historians has become available on an open list to which I subscribe regariding the Mearsheimer & Walt Book, "The Israel Lobby" -- and I recommend reading these, to be found at:  http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/#8.18   I profoundly disagree with one, and more or less agree with one or two minor points of difference, with the other three.  Anyhow, I didn't move on because I wanted to digest these serious reviews. 

Where I differ with all of these reviews is the fact that they skipped over what is actually quite unique in M & W's work -- namely their recognition that an extreme of contemporary right wing and literal fundamentalist American Christianity was very much a central player in the Israel Lobby, as M & W describe it,  and that understanding the role of this group in the network or loose coalition that is the "Israel Lobby" becomes necessary if one is to comprehend American Foreign Policy in the Middle East.  The irony (or at least a part of it) derives from what the Christian Zionists (such as the group Hagee leads) actually believe.  and that is the narrative of the Rapture or "End Times" involving the return of all Jews to Israel, the opportunity for all Jews to finally convert, then the battle of Armageddon, and the Rapture -- with the Jews who fail to convert being in the "left behind" cohort.  I noticed today that MJ Rosenberg over at Josh's place picked up on my irony -- I have left a few comments there -- and he picked up on describing "End-Times" as "End-of-the-Jews-Times."  I like his construction of the Irony.   All of this is about a book that finally broke the Taboo of talking about all this.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are about as uber-Establishment as one can get in Academic Diplomatic History and Foreign Relations studies.  Mearsheimer holds a distinguished chair in the department of International Relations and Political Science at the University of Chicago, Walt holds a named chair at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.  They are situated in the midst of the Realist School of Foreign Policy.  Back in 2002 they were asked by Atlantic to write a feature article on the influence of the "Israel Lobby" on the decision to invade Iraq -- and over several years the Atlantic editors revised the manuscript, but ultimately decided not to publish.  Some months later, the London Review of Books did decide to publish, and both that article, and an extended version published on the Kennedy School website (one that included the vast array of footnotes, but not the logo of Kennedy School) resulted in two phenonema -- the Kennedy School site had over 300 thousand downloads in a week -- and the London Review site sans footnotes, was equally stretched.  The authors were immediately attacked as anti-Semites, (mostly by folk who had hardly bothered to absorb the text), and eventually the Council on Foreign Relations organized a forum, (it was on C-Span which is how I found out about the article and the set-to).  It was probably the Council's according these scholars a proper venue with clear rules of discourse, that finally allowed the actual content of their article to be considered for what it said.

M&W's Thesis is fairly simple.  Understanding that Realists in International Relations/Foreign Policy deal in analysis of policy in terms of National Interests, they propound that the US and Israeli National Interests are not necessarly the same.  They were closer during the Cold War, when the possibilities of Soviet Influence spreading more widely in the Middle East were a concern, but since that time, interests have diverged.   In essence they suggest that the "Israel Lobby" had been a barrier to the Foreign Policy Community recognizing this change, and adjusting US policy accordingly. 

Much of the book (Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2007) is devoted to a description of the components of this lobby.  The Authors make clear that American Politics from the get-go have always been about interest groups organizing and making coalitions to empower interests, and that the modern form of the lobby is essentially American, traditional, and not at all illegal or even a conspiracy -- they totally reject any form of conspiracy theory.  It is fairly open, and certainly subject to analysis.  The only thing that is really wrong is the Taboo -- the private and public pressures against those who would subject it to analysis by a normal scholar, or scholarly method, -- and the reality that any criticism will result in -- well what -- an attack from Alan Dershowitz?  Yes that, and many other things.  We know about Juan Cole being blacklisted at Yale last year, but just recently I have been reading (with delight) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s Journals, and he tells of an effort (early 1960's) he was involved with organizomg a lunch for Senators, hosted by Bill Fullbright with the Arab Diplomats in DC, and only four US Senators were willing to chance coming to such a lunch.  Point being that what M&W describe is not all that new. 

But what they do publish is the core role that "Christian Zionists" play in the "Israel Lobby" -- and doing some counting, offer lots more Representatives and Senators than are elected by an essentially Jewish electorate.  Perhaps as much to the point, about half of the Jewish Electorate wants not so much a pro-Israel representative, just not a negative one, and otherwise are much more concerned with issues.  In essence, the core of the "Israel Lobby" positions may well not be the position of many American Jews.  In many respects, this is a negation of the "Israel Lobby" position.   As much as anything, many who currently support the "Israel Lobby" want to avoid examination of the Christian Zionist role -- which MJ at Josh's place called the "End-of-the-Jews" lobby, if you take the theology anywhere near seriously. 

Mearsheimer and Walt end their book with lots of recommendations, perhaps twenty, and some negations of recommendations from outside.  For instance, they do not recommend forming an alternative Lobby.  But what they do recommend without any caution is just talking -- get it up and talk about all this.  Deal with the taboos on the subjects.  I think this their greatest contribution, and in the sense that they locate the Christian Zionists with their narrative of End Times at the center of their side of the alliance, I think discussion is well advised. 

 

Comments

[Martiki]

Thank you Sara for an interesting diary. I have not read "The Israel Lobby" but your article makes me likely to do so.

[radiofreewill]

Hagee, at the head of a Flock of Millions of End-of-Times Rapturists, can prostrate himself before Talking-to-God Bush, and lick his boots with the best of them!

Why? Because Hagee is a True Believer in His Own Literal Truth - the Triumphant Return of Christ on a Cloud to the Jews in Jerusalem (for one last chance to convert!) and the Vanquishing of all (Non-Christian Heretical) Evil from the World!

He 'sees' Bush as his Never-Makes-A-Mistake Idol of Most Strict Daddy-ness on High, and the Redeemer of God's Infallible Word:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

---

Ironies will abound when reconciling (static) Literal Truths to our (dynamic) Felt-Sense Reality, and that's the problem with being a Sheep - you're fucked when the Shepherd is an Hallucinating Fruitcake Ideologue.

[radiofreewill]

Didn't Our Forefathers say the same thing about Mad King George?

...only, maybe, a little less colorfully?

I apologize if I offended anyone's sensibilities.

[Sara]

My response just went through ten to twelve versions of type what you see, and I am, apparently spam. What gives???

[Sara]

The point of M&W's book is that we should focus on how the Lobby impacts the structuring of America
Foreign Policy.

Can we really believe Bush intends a fully independent Palestinian State? Something that really represents sovereignity in the normal sense of that term? I have grave doubts on this.

As M and W point out, the Arab states have never been interested in an independent Palestine State -- never. The Annapolis meeting was about their blessing something like that, without defination. I think it is more about letting Bush look as if he tried, but the Palestinans would not agree to his deal. This lets him off the hook -- tried, but little co-operation. Abu Mazen is as ineffectual as Arafat.

Bush, If I understand him, he is constrained by American Christian Zionist positions that totally oppose any division of what they view as Biblical Israel, a position that eliminates a sovereign Palestian State, with the normal notions of sovereignty. In which case, I gather the idea is something of an Indian Reservation that is under consideraton. We should have learned.

[janinsanfran]

I went to an event in Berkeley when Mearsheimer and Walt were touring for the book and gave the flavor of it here. It seemed pretty clear to me listening to them that the complete screw up that is Iraq leaves "realists" of their sort (I might label them simply "imperialists") reaching for answers to what could set US policy off on what they see as an ill-designed fiasco.

Numerous polls indicate that the Lobby's expansionist Zionism is NOT the position of most US Jews who tend to be conventional liberal Democrats. Certainly adding the Christianist troops to the conservative Jewish organizations is what gives the Lobby much of its contemporary muscle. Sensible Jewish anti-Zionists have been working diligently and painfully for many years to try to make mainstream Jews aware that the Lobby actually poses a threat to Israel's survival by endorsing and underwriting bellicosity.

[Jon]

Thanks for highlighting an important point of the book.

There is division in the core fundamentalist, evangelical movement. The Hagee segment is increasingly being marginalized. I would expect this marginalization to accelerate as the G.W. Bush Administration comes to a close.

[Jon]

Thanks for highlighting an important point of the book.

There is division in the core fundamentalist, evangelical movement. The Hagee segment is increasingly being marginalized. I would expect this marginalization to accelerate as the G.W. Bush Administration comes to a close.

[Russ]

Everyone sounds very erudite and mature here, yet, this Evangelical connection is the single most dangerous force we've unleasehed in the Middle East. The tabooness (sorry) of the End-Times topic, the unceasing defensiveness and willingness to be angry when asked about it told me long ago all I ever wanted to know about the Christian religion (apart as that has become from christian philosophy).

ANY organized group where the stated fulfillment of their existence, their entire raison d'etre, requires a World War in the Middle East where everyone dies except them should be enough to be forever banned from politics or serious intellectual consideration. And no one 'respectable' (Olbermann can't do everything) can point out that Christians do not want peace in the Middle East, that peace is anathema to their apotheosis...they look to "War and Rumors of War" as signs of their coming reward.

Laughter, ridicule and contempt is all they deserve.