Professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago's Department
of Political Science and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University's Kennedy School
of Government (KGS) wrote a working paper on "The Israel Lobby and US
Foreign Policy". The paper was then published by the KGS at Harvard
University.
Given
that the theme of the paper is no less than a forbidden thought, an untouchable
issue, and a taboo-like notion, Harvard was –of course- harassed by pro-Israeli
lobbyists (deeply incarnated in every possible institution in the World), and
consequently, decided to "to remove its logo
from a study that denounces the pro-Israel lobby's impact on American foreign
policy, in order to distance itself from the study's conclusions" (see article here).
In
their study, the authors ask the one-trillion-dollars of whether the "the Lobby’s
power" could "be curtailed?"
"One would like
to think so," they remark, especially "given the Iraq debacle, the
obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and Islamic world, and the
recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing U.S. government secrets to
Israel."
They, consequently,
conclude that: "[…] There are ample grounds for U.S. leaders to
distance themselves from the Lobby and adopt a Middle East policy more
consistent with broader U.S. interests. In particular, using American power to
achieve a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians would help advance the
broader goals of fighting extremism and promoting democracy in the Middle East.
But that is not going
to happen anytime soon. AIPAC and its allies (including Christian Zionists)
have no serious opponents in the lobbying world. They know it has become more
difficult to make Israel’s case today, and they are responding by expanding
their activities and staffs. Moreover, American politicians remain acutely
sensitive to campaign contributions and other forms of political pressure and
major media outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what
it does.
[...] This situation
is deeply worrisome, because the Lobbyʹs influence causes trouble on several
fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face—including
Americaʹs European allies.
[...] Furthermore,
the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria could lead the United
States to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous effects. We do
not need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility toward these
countries makes it especially difficult for Washington to enlist them against
al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed.
[...] There is a
moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United States has become
the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, making
it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians.
[...] Moreover, the
Lobby’s campaign to squelch debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy.
Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts—or by suggesting that
critics are anti‐Semites—violates the principle of open debate upon which
democracy depends. The inability of the U.S. Congress to conduct a genuine
debate on these vital issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic
deliberation.
Finally, the Lobby’s
influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to persuade Washington to
support an expansionist agenda has discouraged Israel from seizing
opportunities ‐‐ including a peace treaty with Syria and a prompt and full
implementation of the Oslo Accords ‐‐ that would have saved Israeli lives and
shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists."
Read
the whole
study for yourself.
