After considerable reflection, I have decided to become a member of the chattering class. I find that putting my thoughts down on paper (or in this case on a computer) helps me to make them more coherent. (Although after reading this some might disagree) I hope to periodically comment on issues and topics that interest me. (They may be of more interest to me than to readers) One of the problems with a blog is that sometimes you can end up between a page of chicken recipes and a porn site, but you can't always choose your neighbors.
As I prepare to leave for two weeks in Israel, Jordan and the West Bank, I am reminded that I, as well as others in our group, am venturing outside of my comfort zone. Although I have been to Jordan several times with Habitat for Humanity and have been to many other off the beaten path places, this will be my first visit to the sometime war zone that is Israel and the West Bank. Fortunately, in his sermon a couple of weeks ago about Jesus’ disciples following him to his death in Jerusalem, Father Brian reminded us all that it is OK to step outside our comfort zone, to take up our cross and to go to Jerusalem.
Needless to say, I have been keeping a close eye on what is happening in this volatile area of the world on various sources of news and information. Since Al Jareeza provides one of the most complete sources of news on the Middle East, I have been a regular reader. In this process, I came across an article which described a paper written by Stephen Walt, Professor at Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago on US Middle East policy. (The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy) They pose the question “Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?” I have asked that question in another way. Why is it in real politic interest of the US to maintain a client state in the Middle East at great cost (20% of our foreign aid budget) when this client state often operates in opposition to our national interest? It might have made sense during the cold war to counteract Soviet client states, but does it still make sense? Walt and Mearsheimer answer the question this way: “…the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’.”
I have seen no commentary on the paper it self in the US media. (at 83 pages it is not an easy read) What I have seen and heard is aggressive negative responses from a number of sources including Marvin Kalb, Lecturer at Harvard and 30 year journalist with NBC and CBS and Dennis Ross, Middle East ambassador in the first Bush and Clinton administrations as reported on Fox News. (Both of these gentlemen may have reasons to protest as they have long time relationships with AIPAC)
Today produced a negative op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal by Ruth Wisse, Professor of Yiddish Literature at Harvard. Her answer to the question posed by Walt and Mearsheimer is “Israel fights our battles better than we fight them ourselves.” (She got this answer from a Boston taxi driver) She also provides insightful criticism of the paper as “wacko, quacko”, containing “bloopers, distortions and omissions” and an “anti-Semitic lie”.
I am reminded of a piece of advice that was given to Marcia and me early in our marriage which has contributed to our 42 years together. In a dispute “the person yelling the loudest is usually the one that is wrong” Stay tuned to see who is yelling the loudest.
Israel
Stephen Walt
John Mearsheimer
No comments:
Post a Comment