American Parochialism: Armenia, the Dalai Lama and the Jewish Question
John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt, the authors of the ever controversial Israeli Lobby, continue to insist that the U.S. government is in the pocket of the American Jewish lobby. No, they are not anti-Semites. But yes, they are wrong - not because the Israeli lobby isn't powerful, but because Middle Eastern policy is only one among a legion of others that are made on the basis of a stunted American parochialism that filters all foreign policy through a self-indulgent domestic lens.
Two new controversies from today's headlines make this ever so clear: the Israeli-leaning U.S. Congress turns out to be the Armenian-leaning and the Tibet-leaning U.S. Congress, even when these "for domestic consumption only" inclinations reflect a disastrously parochial disdain for realism and jeopardize relations with Turkey and China. One hundred years ago, a predecessor regime to the modern Turkish regime (the Ottoman Empire), committed genocide. The Congress has decided that precisely now - as we depend more than ever on Turkish assistance in the war in Iraq and are trying to dissuade the Turkish government from incursions in Kurdish Iraq - is the perfect time to condemn a regime five generations away from the original events for this horrendous but ancient tragedy.
Likewise, the Congress has decided that this is the ideal moment - as we try to win Chinese cooperation on keeping Iran nuclear free and ask the Chinese government to show more tolerance on human rights - to honor the Dalai Lama with its highest medal, though the exercise is bound to infuriate China. Tibet and Taiwan are China's two great bugaboos, holding out the specter of national disintegration, China's most ancient and profound anxiety.
So, no Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, the United States is not in hoc to Israel, it is in hoc to parochialism. It doesn't make foreign policy according to the Jewish lobby's wishes, it makes foreign policy to indulge a host of domestic concerns and self-celebratory varieties of hide-bound insularity. The United States remains a hegemonic global superpower sporting the narrow outlook of mini-states like Monaco and Lichtenstein.
It is not just Middle Eastern policy that is skewed, it is American relations with China, Turkey, France (remember "freedom fries?") and many other states vital to the pursuit of U.S. interests in an interdependent world.
The bad news is that when it comes to international affairs, America remains trapped in self-righteous and self-defeating provincialism. The good news is that this means the power of the Israeli lobby is merely a subordinate clause in the greater story of endless American parochialism. It is the latter and not the former we need to overcome.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The headline "American Parochialism: Armenia, the Dalai Lama and the Jewish Question" is misleading.
It's not a "Jewish question." It's an "Israel Lobby" question. The Israel Lobby are not representative of Jewish people in America. The powerful Israel Lobby is disproportionately hawkish. Ethnically Jewish people in America are not.
You are right on the point about most of the Jewish people not for the policies of the Israel lobbys. Just like the war hawks of Bush and his administration , Jewish learder are war hawks and want to destroy the whole middle east once and for all...
See who is getting the big paychecks that are running for president like Hillary, and look at their position on the Iraq war and going to war with Iran.
Hillary receives around half of the Jewish lobby's donations that goes to the democratic candidates. Her position is to keep our military in Iraq for 5 years and more, and she voted to make one half of Iran's army terrorist. This has never been done before.
What would happen if Russia or China or anyother nation wanted to call our military terrorist. Now with the passing of this bill it has given Bush a blank check for starting Cheney's war against Iran, and Syria....
BSOS, I keep hearing that, but the proof of ther pudding is in the eating. There is a great silence from those opposing Jews we keep being told about. The few (Chomsky, Finkelstein) who speak out in opposition are villified and unless they are, like Chomsky, too well established, they are punished for their "bad" behavior. (Think of Norm Finkelstei
And look at the lengths some went to to keep the late Israel Shahak's messages out of sight.
The election of Lieberman was more than a Republican thing, too.
So, while I keep hearing one thing, I keep seeing another.
This isn't true - most American Jews do support Israeli policies. In fact there is more unconditional support in this country than in Irael where they're more outspoken about some of the policies.
But this comment will disappear into the black hole so nobody will see it.
It's dangerous.
Amazing! They actually decided to let a comment from me about this topic appear here and not be censored.
But all my other comments disappeared and not I'm too annoyed to join this discussion. The sad truth is most American Jews might claim to be liberal and want peace for both people, but the truth that we don't want to admit is that most of us don't care about it. We support Israel because that is what we learned from our families and we're too wrapped up in our American lives to care much either way about the occupation.
JJWFromME -- I seriously doubt one can separate Jews from Israel. While I agree that, as in most movements, you'll find the most passionate supporters in the forefront, Israel is an intrinsic element of Jewish identity. I certainly don't support the most right wing elements in Israel, but am still a strong and proud supporter of Israel. Polls consistently show well over 95% of American Jews demonstrate general support for Israel -- the basic need and right for it to exist.
So, when someone attacks the "Jewish Lobby", it's like attacking the Civil Rights Movement for being too radical or militant -- one may say its not racist, but it's awfully hard not to see it that way.
Please believe, you can separate Jews from the governmental politics of Israel.
How about this - Jews believe they have always been victims. They believe this even though they know God chose them. That is what they read in the Bible (OT). Somehow this weird idea which exists in a book which was oral history for more than a thousand years before it was written down is accepted though other things also in the same book are ignored. For instance nobody thinks of stoning a disobedient son anymore. Now - Jews have been victims of Christians for various reasons which are in part because of the story of the crucifixion and a verse which blames the Jews for it. But in fact, Jewish persecution was in large part for economic reasons and was supported by the Christian church. Now saying this about Christians is okay with Christians who know it is true and with Jews. Jews however, celebrate myths and possibly facts of persecution which go back thousands of years. I mean the Egyptians attacked a lot of people and who cares. Jews only care that the Egyptians made Jews make bricks without straw. But God got back at the Egyptians who endured plagues and locusts and so on because they said the Jews had to stay in Egpyt. Many Jews never forget. The Irish and the Serbs are nothing to them.
It is factually and historically incorrect to blame all of the tension in the Middle East on Israel and no other nation-state. There have been a number of conflicts in the region that have had absolutely nothing to do with Israel.
As for Israeli lobby, it is a major player, but it is certainly overshadowed by any number of other lobby firms. For example, the influence of more than a few defense contractors certainly outweighs the power of AIPAC.
Mr.Liberal
Finally, someone who knows whats his talking about. Thank you.
In reading some of the comments, the combination of pompous self-righteousness and almost total ignorance of the historical context is truly staggering. There's the freedom of internet for you.
Some putz who passed a high school history with a C- and never been outside of Bumsville explains the history of the Middle East to equally eager and ignorant co-posters. All picked their "expertise" from some blog or Wikipedi.
As Oscar Wilde once said:"
"I am not young enough to know everything
Sigh.....
MagisterLudi - you can't teach an old dog new tricks. An old adage.
Barber is right that pointing to the Israel lobby as controlling foreign policy oversimplifies things, and misses the degree to which our politics is pushed by various special interests. The Armenian genocide issue both points to another such group, and also illustrates the limits of the Israel lobby which strongly opposed the resolution on the grounds that Turkey is Israel's best friend in the region.
But mouselion is right that even this is only a small part of the picture. Is there really a good reason we should be worried about offending the Chinese over Tibet right now? Barber points to preventing Iran from gaining nuclear power. But does the offended status of China really have much of an effect there? It seems doubtful. It is Russia that has just declared itself the protector of Iran, not China.
Not only are we allowed to have some principle thrown in with our pragmatism, there is little point to the pragmatism unless there is a degree of principle guiding it.
YES!!! Once again, Benjamin Barber has concisely presented the awful truth of American foreign policy: there is no conspiracy, except perhaps a conspiracy of dunces. There is no lobby controlling American policy. The sad fact is, we are simply OUT OF TOUCH with the world -- as proven by the frighteningly small number of Americans with foreign language skills. America does not value knowledge of the world, yet we are the most commanding nation in the world.
http://www
We are NOT out of touch Rumi.
The problem is a small industry (defense) that wants to USE other lobbies to legitimize
lobbies like the Israeli and Christian fundies to control US policy. Don't think that they are not directly tied to each other.
The defense industry has been using the same propaganda-like Israel since the Cold-War by creating boogymen everywhere to play on the paranoia (Holocaust).
The problem we have today-is that we are at a crossroads-and all parties know it-and are tightly trying to control the propaganda. to continue down this road means further erosion of civil rights, more distrust of Fed. govt., more laws enacted taking us further away from what this country was founded on- FREEDOM-which is NOT fear. The very men who decided to break away from England-didn't do so becasue they were afraid. They did so, becasue they knew they had to-and were not afraid to do so.
"the Israeli-leaning U.S. Congress turns out to be the Armenian-leaning and the Tibet-leaning U.S. Congress"
Tibet is in the news to supplant concern over the Palestinians.
Congress will not vote against Turkey.
http://www
Abdullah Gul needed a favor...th
Abraham Foxman’s ADL acquiesced
...the ADL joined three other American Jewish organizations—the American Jewish Committee, B'nai Brith International, and the Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs—to deliver to Congress a written plea from the Jews of Turkey that the U.S. not recognize the Armenian Genocide..
“I don't think congressional action will help reconcile the issue. The resolution takes a position; it comes to a judgment,” said Foxman in a statement issued to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “The Turks and Armenians need to revisit their past. The Jewish community shouldn't be the arbiter of that history, nor should the U.S. Congress." Foxman‘s statement is in every way that matters equivalent to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that he takes no position on the historicity of the Jewish Holocaust, but only hopes to see the matter resolved by dispassionate study... virtually no one other than Turkish lobbyists had explained their opposition by challenging the nearly undisputed consensus among historians that a genocide did indeed take place.
There are extremists in all groups of people, religious or otherwise. I think we need to draw distinctions between the fundamentalist factions and the moderate factions within societies rather than typecast any group of people. We have new problems today which need our attention, and we must work together to solve them.
Also, it's likely the Turkey-Armenian genocide- Congress thing has some political calculation to it, in regards to getting out of Iraq. (Wouldn't want to get too detailed in my surmise on that, though).
Liberal political calculation --on the international war front. And, why not?
Desperate Times Lead To Desperate Measures?.
Why Israel is not like the proposed Congressional Armenian Statement and the Dalai Lama:
1. Israel is a wealthy, relatively stable democratic nation with obvious (and sometimes quite influential) ties to the West. It is not the model a "developing nation" or a fiefdom with a high disproportion in the distribution of wealth.
2. This first point feeds on itself and creates the fact that Israel is very powerful little nation. And, while the Judaeo-Christian connection is at the historical root of U.S. involvement with Israel, had Israel become a different kind of nation, then it would not enjoy the same status or treatment. However, the Moses-connection would still be nodded to, with a differential treatment that would be within sensible terms for the U.S.
Israel receives its special status more because the West needed what it considered a staunch ally in the Middle East to protect interests that are much more precious, under the surface, than even the Holy Land would ever be with a certain ilk of greedy, cynical Westerners.
There, I've had my say. What do HuffPo readers think? A destructive "parochial" inclination that rules all policies? Or, as I believe a mixed bag of tricks, --with a need to have both our American idealism of Human Dignity and our pragmatic statesman's wits sharp and present.
If
(1) Israel is a wealthy nation, then why does America still pour billions of dollars into it every year? The Americans cannnot afford health care for their own people, but the Israelis can. Why shouldnn't the richer naation aid the poorer one?
(2) The term "judeoChristian is a Zionist popularization. Before one spoke of Christiaan civilization, Christian virtues, etc. And w3e were told of Arabs and Muslim inj Paqlestine, never of Christians annd Muslim. But why did the Muslim get the isolation treatment? Aha! If they're not lke us we can mistreaat them without qualms.
When the Second World War ended, there were no people more admiring of the US than the Arabs, so the baloney about needing an ally there is BS, if you will pardon the expression. Or even if you won't.
Uh...don't know where you get your information FlowerGirl, but most Arab leaders, the Grand Mufti of jerusalem in particular, sided with Hitler during WWII. Of course, I'm sure there wasn't any anti-semitism, right? Arabs don't hate jews for any non justifiable reasons, right??
I doubt they were very pro-america right after WWII, and after the US was the first to recognize Israel.
Israel's ties to America go far beyond any lobby. You and your 'progressive' (I consider myself a democrat, definitely don't identify with the far left though) friends could raise millions of dollars to create a pro hezbullah and pro hamas lobby in DC (which I'm sure you're trying to do!) and wouldn't get an audience, wouldn't have any success - because the values of these organizations, and the people that support them, are nowhere near in line with those of the United States and its people.
AIPAC is influential because it pushes policy that is for the most part directly in line with the will of the majority american people (check public opinion polls - Americans consistently support israel over its adversaries, usually by a very wide margin).
The US very much did need, and still needs, a reliable ally in the middle east.
And spare me all your BS about 'judeochristian' being a zionist popularization - wait...are you ANNE COULTER? Ahhh! I see now.
The term judeo christian precedes zionism. But your true colors really shine through with that statement. Wow.
You have a good point point about the Arabs admiring the U.S. after WWII. Another case of us blowing an opportunity to peace.
The reason we give so much to Israel is because --it's Israel.
(Giant puppy curled up at the growl of the older little dog syndrome).
The author isn't denying the existence of an "Israel lobby", he's arguing that this is just one facet of a broader geopolitical agenda. American foreign policy is based on politicizing global capitalism and the idea that peace is only possible if everybody is on the same page (our's) politically.
The American world-view is a radical interpretation of Manifest Destiny. We will unite the world by imposing our politics on everybody. The only sovereignty we respect is our own. We end up losing potential allies that are interested in democracy, human rights, nuclear proliferation, and so on because we're more interested in making demands than making progress.
In this sense, our treatment of foreign governments is the polar opposite of the way we operate our own. We hardly demand anything from our government except for a vaguely plausible argument that we're making progress. Sure, human rights aren't great in China, and they aren't making tremendous progress. But back at home, our human rights record *is* making significant progress--
To your last paragraph, I say not the case.
While racism (as one example of a domestic ill) may be on the rise in this country, we have increasingly become more activist as citizenry on the home-front, since the beginning of the twentieth century, and progressively on from there.
I believe our sensibilities then went to knowing and caring more about the plight of different peoples in the world as a result of our own progressing social conscience (not the other way around). U.S. "Manifest Destiny" as the driving force in international affairs is probably more of a real element in the present administration since the 1920's (or maybe earlier). Otherwise, conventional the wisdom for the U.S. (for quite a long time) has been that other societies' cultures may not leave the people inclined for our style of governance.
"But back at home, our human rights record *is* making significant progress--
I have to assume you're referring to the Bush administration's use of torture and warrentless surveillance. I agree; it will take years to correct what has taken place since 9/11. I had hoped that the Democrats would begin to correct things, but now I fear they have added legitimacy to "Cheney's Law" and in doing so have added years to our recovery from these anti-Constitutional measures.
Another poster seems to think you're referring to "racism...
I am unclear as to whose initiative it was to award the medal to the Lama. Was it congress or the President who got the ball started?
if the armenian genocide is as stale and irrelevant to modern turks as you say, then why are THEY over-reacting? far be it from me to defend our government, but sometimes it's the other country who is crazy and wrong, you know? what are we, some scary co-dependent enablers who refuse to speak the truth because someone else, who is entirely wrong, might react like a jerk?
speak truth to power, i say. ataturk himself condemned the ottoman genocide, so why can't we? and why doesn't turkey embrace it and say "thank god we overthrew them?"
i would be glad to hear turkey condemn our wholesale slaughter of native americans and/or our history of slavery and/or our misbehavior in viet nam and/or our wrongful internment of the japanese americans!! these were awful, awful things we did, and unless we keep their memories alive, we will repeat those mistakes - - LIKE WE ARE DOING NOW.
>>>If the armenian genocide is as stale and irrelevant to modern turks as you say, then why are THEY over-reacting?
Because it is advertised as not Ottoman (which includes Muslims of different origins, Turks, Kurds, Arabs, Balkans, etc.) doing something but the Turks doing something.
And, you say over-reacting. Of course, if you blame a nation directly for the worst crime, with genocide, even though, it is not accepted by that nation, would that kind of decision become over-reacting, or a natural reaction?
>>>ataturk himself condemned the ottoman genocide, so why can't we?
Ataturk has never condemned to that (No one in his right mind would enjoy the deaths of thousands of civilians around that time, and anyone would feel bad about that kind of thing being happened. Do you feel happy about the Hiroshima bombing?). So, in that case, if you are using that excuse, then, the answer to your question is, you cannot!
>>>i would be glad to hear turkey condemn our wholesale slaughter of native americans.
So, now it is a slaughter and not genocide? Be consistent my friend!
Meaning no disrespect Seral, but your post gives hints that English is not your native language. To say "wholesale slaughter of native americans" would be understood as meaning genocide by most Americans, despite the fact that all too many would try to rationalize away what the US did to its indigenous peoples.
Unfortunately, the only logical conclustion to the Chiaa conflict is war. The variables are which generation in which this will occur, and the primary means of combat.
Logical conclusion is ...war????
Sounds more like prediction than logic. Whose logic?
Mearsheimer and Walt ("M&W") do not "continue to insist that the U.S. government is in the pocket of the American Jewish lobby." Their article (now book) discusses "the Israel Lobby." In fact, M&W are careful to note that many American Jews disagree with the positions of the Israel Lobby. So when you incorrectly identify the focus of M&W as the "American Jewish Lobby," not only do you do a disservice to the work of M&W, you also do a disservice to American Jews. Additionally, conflating "Jewish" and "Israel" serves to feed the myth that criticism of Israel is equivalent to criticism of Jewish people.
"Mearsheimer and Walt ("M&W") do not "continue to insist that the U.S. government is in the pocket of the American Jewish lobby.""
Good point. This is the type of thing an ordinary high school student would be corrected on in an ordinary research paper.
Of course, Israel has inordinate influence on American foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, and Mearsheimer and Walt are absolutely correct in their assessment of the influence of the Jewish lobby. It influences American policy specifically through campaign contributions and favors to politicians. Essentially, it has bought our politicians.
Of course nobody writes a book about the influence of the Arab lobbies and all their money that is paid to bribe people in this country.
Why do you think Bin Laden's family was allowed to leave this country after 9/11 without being interviewed? Why do think we continue to buy oil from Saudi Arabia when they support terrorism and hatred toward our country?
I can understand being critical of the Israel lobby but they're not doing anything that other people aren't doing also.
There are quite a few books about the Arabs lobbies, such as the "House of Saud" by Craig Unger.
The author criticizes Walt and Mearsheimer for something they did not write. They don't claim that the Israel lobby is the only powerful foreign lobby which hurts the interests of the U.S.. They do point out that there is a Cuban and an Armenian lobby which causes a lot of trouble, too.
How about this: The influence of a lobby should not be determined by money but by the number of soldiers their ethnic group is volunteering. I have never heard of one single GI of Armenian descent, so how come they are making demands at the expenses of Irish-, Italian, - and German-Americans and Blacks who are actually serving in Iraq?
Well two wrongs don't make a right.
Poboy it's amazing that you, as a black person feel you have absolute right to talk racist smack about the Jews as minority,
yet you go ape-shit when people talk about YOUR minority.
Don't you see how narrow minded this approach is?
Magister are you actually saying the Jews are a race. I thought Judaism is a religion. All this time I thought Hitler was nuts for talking about Jews as a race. In fact I don't think any anthropologist would even admit there is such a thing as a race. I thought Sammy Davis Junior became a Jew. Definitely he had very very dark skin. Was he a Jew or not?
I would like to ask, as you are questioning the narrow-mindedness of the politicians, how does that act differ from lobbying?
In maybe all countries the powerful governs the country. In some, the level of governing is at the level of almost controlling, in others, it may only have a minor impact.
Here, you can see both. On some issues, US can make the differentiation. In others, they cannot, because of politics, they have to ignore one side of the problem to highly favour the other side. I think Middle East is one of those.
The decision makers cannot act independent of the Israeli lobby in US, when it comes to dealing with matters directly related to Israel. Yes, US and Israel had common profits in many of those matters, but that shows, how much their politics are intervened together. That is not a healthy structure. Just like Israel cannot show its independence from US, the same is true for US, again, when it comes to matters directly related to Israel.
I see the Armenian problem in a similar view. Currently, the politics inside tell the decision makers that they should favour only the Armenians and ignore the concerns of the other side.
The strongest country, that should have all the resources, cannot even have the power to start a finalizing historical research study on that issue to make it impossible for either side to argue against the final decision, and prevent others to make use of them for their own profit. Instead, these politicians ignore the middle steps, and jump to the predicted final step, which is of course open to any kind of controversy.
The zealous "American parochialism" you speak of may be a tad bit overstated, and denial of being under the thumb Israel just a degree (or two or three or four) from the truth. Yes, we Americans are self-righteous about human rights, while forgetting our own misdeeds (such as the Trail of Tears and the treatment of Japanese Americans in WWII, among a host of other incidents).
And, yes, I agree, this is definitely the wrong time to make a Congressional statement renouncing Turkey for possible Armenian genocide. But, to eschew all acknowledgment of immoral acts by nations in favor of the sole approach of diplomatic pragmatism is as dangerous as not heeding the wisdom of not irking Turkey at the exact wrong time.
There must be a balance, or we loose the moral compass which is the ideals we call American.
Honoring the Dalai Lama at this time is not the wrong thing to do (unlike the Turkey debacle). China presently has s dismal human rights record (with very little indication of change). And, His Holiness is advocating exactly the historic relationship Tibet and China have had for more than a millennia: an autonomous protectorate.
China protests, but it is an empty gesture. They have power and influence in the world, but they need the west (which loves the Dalai Lama and supports his cause) --and are in serious economic trouble right now. To allow China to dictate who our friends are and what our values are, does not serve the U.S., only China.
The result of such behavior would be to cause the breeding of amoral business-oriented pragmatists with no regard for human rights, only how we please our global allies.
It is balance of pragmatism and idealism that keeps us on the solid path --not the one or the other.
The only way this administration could "honor" the Dalai Lama would be by resigning en masse.
The only way the Dalai Lama can remain honorable is to reject this psuedo "honoring".
A transparent PR stunt to align Bush with the Dalai Lama's philosophy of "compassion"
Sorry mouselion but you are wrong about China. You need to learn about the long history of Tibet with China. Not only that but Tibet was truly a medieval country where the people were bound to a most dismal life. This is not to say that I personally like all of China's actions but if you go to China you will see a duplicate of the Dalai Lama's palace (monastery) where he lived while he was in China. It is still there having survived the Red Guard and the modernization of China. It is very old. Very very old.
All the articles that I've seen on this blog are anti-Mearsheimer and Walt. Is this the only side of the argument we're going to hear on Huffington Post? Not that those arguments shouldn't be made, but what about something resembling equal time?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
