Levy on Mearsheimer and Walt

Israeli policy analyst Daniel Levy has written a long and insightful review of M&W for Haaretz and Talking Points Memo. He previews his article:

To briefly set out my stall: while I certainly take issue with the specific recent policy examples in the book (Iraq and Syria in particular), I would argue that the relationship between the US, Israel and the lobby that speaks in its name needs to change for everyone’s sake, that this book contributes to a re-think and that the authors are not driven by prejudice.

His main criticisms of M&W (to me) are the following: M&W underestimate the role, influence and relative power of Christian Fundamentalists in the Israel Lobby, they overly conflate the IL with the neocons, and they exaggerate the continuity from pre-Bush to Bush.

As to the first, he notes the oddity of House Speaker Richard Armey (a Christian fundamentalist) declaring: "my number one priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel." How odd is it that a leading official in the government of one country could make such a declaration about another? One can imagine the outcry if Nancy Pelosi were to make such a statement about Mexico, Canada, or France. Levy also notes:

The main Christian pro-Israel lobby group, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), has grown exponentially in recent years. It is fanatical in its devotion and politically way over to the right, channeling millions annually to support settlements.

I was equally impressed by his comments on the neocons:

The neocons are a tight-knit group of ultra-hawks, favoring unilateral projection of U.S. power as a benign hegemon. They are predominantly, though not exclusively, Jewish, congregate around certain think tanks and publications (notably the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard, respectively) and are most associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which set out their goals in the 1990s. After 2000, neocons took up key positions in the Bush administration. Walt and Mearsheimer place them four-square inside the Israel lobby. The reality seems more complicated than that. Many leading neocons, by their own admission, care greatly about Israel, but they want to impose their policy, not follow Jerusalem's. Unlike, for instance, AIPAC, which takes its lead from the Israeli government, and then tends to give it an extra twist to the right, the neocons adhere to a rigid ideological dogma and are not afraid to confront a government in Jerusalem they view as too "soft."

The view that sees neocons as spearheading the Israel lobby position under Bush has serious flaws. It is more likely that the neocons co-opted the Israel lobby, and Israel itself, to their own vision of regional transformation. This is more PNAC than AIPAC.

His view that things took a rightward (if nonetheless sinister) turn with the accession of Bush naturally finds a ready audience in me.

In the world of the ultra-plutocrat, one or a few super-rich individuals can steer the policy of a huge nation, especially a nation whose politicians are forced to spend most of their lives hustling campaign contributions. He mentions the role of Sheldon Adelson, gambling and real estate mega-billionaire - the third richest American.

Freedom’s Watch and the push for a military attack on Iran has an eerie familiarity about it. Just look at who the prime donor and mover behind Freedom’s Watch is – Sheldon Adelson – close ally of Bibi Netanyahu who has poured millions into a pro-Bibi daily paper in Israel...

The whole article is well worth a read. It gave me a more balanced view of M&W's subject.