From Mearsheimer and Walt to the birth of J Street.

In March 2006 two prominent academics; Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard University published what has been described as the most controversial essay in International Relations discourse since Samuel Huntington’s widely celebrated work, The Clash of Civilizations.

The essay that was originally commissioned and then rejected by the Atlantic Monthly had a simple objective and that was to discuss the impact of the Israel lobby on US foreign policy. While at face value and certainly to many IR scholars outside the US the topic is nothing new and a many conversations and articles have opined on its intricacies. In the US, however, the article unleashed a firestorm, indeed one does not exaggerate when saying that nothing like it has ever been published certainly not by two intellectuals – agree with them or not – of the stature of Mearsheimer and Walt.

The title of their groundbreaking piece was appropriately enough, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Their hypothesis was equally non-radical, after describing the impressive degree of material and diplomatic support the US provides to Israel, the writers argue that this support cannot be understood or explained on strategic or moral grounds. Indeed they state that “it was due largely to the political power of the Israel lobby, a loose coalition of individuals and groups that seeks to influence American foreign policy in ways that will benefit Israel”. They go on to explain that not only does the lobby encourage and pressure the US government into providing unequivocal and unconditional support to Israel, it has played an influential role in shaping foreign policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the invasion of Iraq, the confrontation with Syria and the Iranian stand-off. Their final assertion is that the policies pursued have in fact been detrimental to both countries’ long-term interest.

The response to the piece was predictably fiery. As foreseen by the writers, charges of anti-Semitism were levelled against them. Their essay was erroneously criticized for its supposed factual and historical omissions that, in the view of their critics, weakened their argument. Indeed much of what has been said about Mearsheimer and Walt corresponds with the vitriol leveled against former president Jimmy Carter for his book, Palestine Peace not Apartheid. While many academics around the world, and I stress this point purposefully, lauded the book for its moral courage and encouraged the discussion around an issue key to US foreign policy but seldom openly discoursed, the reception it received in the US was far from positive. At least in the traditional circles of foreign policy and security studies.

However, something changed in the perception, a seismic shift not only in the way Americans perceived their special relationship with Israel but, more pointedly, in the way American Jews related to the lobby that has historically assumed a prominent role in supposedly representing their wishes. Although the lobby is made up of numerous individuals and groups, its most vocal voice is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. A hard-line organizations whose membership includes a vast catalogue of right-wing neoconservative military hawks. For too long they have been the pro-Israel group with the most influential voice, they have as the writers outline pressured consecutive American governments to provide an uncritical cover for Israel. This support has obviously manifested itself in favorable military aid grants, an automatic veto of any resolution condemning Israeli aggression at the Security Council, and an unrelenting stream of funds to subsidize anything from expanding settlements to the development of more “effective” cluster bombs.

Today though the tide is changing. While many decried the piece as anti-Semitic and bigoted, it received respectful and favorable reviews from traditional pro-Israel outlets including The New York Times and Israeli newspaper Haaretz. The more encouraging development though was the debate born out of an attempt by two academics to discuss the ultimate taboo in American politics. Whether or not they are included in the ensuing debate is irrelevant. What is important, however, is that more people, American and Jewish are discussing the influence of the lobby, its hawkish policies, and its ultra-conservative slant, evaluating whether or not these positions and policies promoted by organizations like AIPAC truly benefit the long-term interests of the US and Israel.

The reality, is that they do not. As a result, an organization long overdue has been created. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. They support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the US’ role in the region.

The organization has won the backing of many individuals with extensive experience in the region including; Former Israeli Foreign Minister and Public Security Minister Shlomo Ben Ami, Former US Sentaor Lincoln Chafee, Maria Echaveste Former Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Sara Ehrman Former Political Education Director at AIPAC, Robert Greenwald from Brave New Films, Robert Pastor Former Senior Director of the National Security Council, Eli Paster Executive Director of MoveOn.org, Kevin Quigley President of the National Peace Corps Association. View more supporters of J Street here.

The organization has openly rejected the kind of support the traditional Israel lobby has solicited from the US government in claiming to represent American Jews:

One of its current campaigns is “Don’t go, Joe!”, its aim to get Sen. Joseph Lieberman to withdraw his commitment to speak Pastor John Hagee’s Israel Summit in July in Washington D.C. Sign the petition.

The organisation is already facing an uphill battle. It has taken challenge, it is going to change the political map in Washington and with it the Middle East map, but before it does that it’s going to face a hell of fight from the tradition Israel lobby, they have already begun their efforts, J Street will only survive with our support. Sign up to the J Street newsletter here and help put a pro-Israel, pro-Peace voice in Washington by donating.

Song of the Week(s).

In the spirit of Arabia, I choose this song. It’s by Fairouz, a Lebanese singer. To the Arab world Fairouz came suddenly, as a miracle. At a time when Arabic singing was weighed down with convention and predictability, and spirits were nationally at their lowest, her voice rang, as though from the beyond, the notes of salvation and joy. Arabic music has never been the same since. Nostalgic but vibrant, sad but defiant, folkloric and yet so new, hers has been for nearly 30 years perhaps the only voice that seems so capable of jubilation in an almost cosmic sense. By turns mystic and amorous, elegiac and fiery, her singing has expressed the whole emotional scale of Arab life with haunting intensity. Often singers give listeners pleasure, as they expect. She often gives them, beyond their expectation, ecstasy.

Raj3een ya Hawa

’tis the season to be Hopeful?

At the risk of getting too ahead of myself, it seems things are changing. A semblance of something good in a long, long, dark winter that has engulfed my region, and I can’t help but feel a certain sense of hopefulness. Barack’s message has entered the popular zeitgeist and apparently infiltrated the often stifled political climate of the Middle East.

Only a week after President Bush, on a speech in Israel, went out of his way to make a fool of himself and criticize the presumptive Democratic nominee, if not by name, for calling for direct negotiations with “enemy” countries; Iran, Syria, Venezuela etc. The very same country in which the president found time to declare his personal distaste for diplomacy announced that it has been engaged in high-level direct negotiations with its nemesis, Syria. The talks mediated by Turkey and held in undisclosed locations are aimed at reaching a peaceful settlement for the decades-old crisis that threatens the region every now and then with the possibility of another war.

As usual, the Right has jumped on the bandwagon and tried to paint the talks as political manoeuvring by embattled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmret, who faces serious corruption allegations, or even a strategic error of the highest order, since it is widely known that Syria would naturally like the Golan back, occupied since the Israeli invasion of 1967, the Heights remain a thorn in any potential settlement between the sides. The Right has declared the area strategic to Israel’s security and sees giving it up as some form of capitulation or even in the words of one idiot, “appeasement”.

It is, however, a cause for celebration that they are talking. The Bush brand of conflict resolution has proved a spectacular failure and for one of his staunchest allies to talk openly and with “an open mind” with one of his most reviled adversaries is a humiliating repudiation.

In any case, talks have come and go in the Middle East, some with great rewards; Israel is at peace with Egypt and Jordan largely thanks to peace talks. The urgency inherent in the climate with the region facing some of its toughest tests forces us to even rethink the reasons behind talks, if there was a time to avert all out war it is today, with the rising power of Iran, the simmering Civil War in Iraq and the potent explosiveness of Islamist extremists, leaders like Olmret and for that matter Assad are needed and indeed should be encouraged in their endeavours.

But wait! The hopeful season does not end there. Yesterday, Lebanese factions announced in Doha, Qatar that they have reached an agreement that would end the conflict that has seen the country edging slowly to the brink of all out war. Under the agreement, the opposition led by Hizbollah, would form a national unity government with the Sunni-Christian-Druze majority led by the Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.

Many see the agreement as a win for Hizbollah, whose show of force last week resulted in the deaths of 62 people in addition to the seizure of West Beirut; the worst violence the country has seen since its 15-year Civil War. The actions stunned the nation and reminded people in Lebanon and in the region of the all-too-recent sectarian strife that cost the nation more than 100,000 deaths.

Under the agreement, Gen. Michelle Suleyman was agreed a consensus candidate for President, an office empty since November, when Syrian-backed Emile Lahoud’s term ended. In addition, the opposition made up of two main factions; Hizbollah and Michel Oun’s Free Patriotic Movement would have a veto over any cabinet decision. There is proposed redistricting before the parliamentary election next year as well as a timetable for talking about, and resolving, Hizbollah’s sizable weapons arsenal.

All in all, good developments, positive Ones. Of course there may have been ulterior motives involved (See: Syria-Israel talks implications on Hizbollah, Hizbollah’s strength forces Israel to try and isolate Iran and bring Syria to the Western fold). However, for a region so used to failure in politics.

This is good!

Zimbabwe heading to a Recount.

The saga of Zimbabwe’s election has reached larger proportions. On Friday, the election commission announced that opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, had won more votes that incumbent despot Robert Mugabe, but not enough as to not warrant a run-off.

The New York Times reports that the opposition party has denounced the officials for accelerating the release of the results before the opposition had any chance to challenge them.

“They did not verify the results,” Mr. Chamisa said. “They did not give us an opportunity to contest the results. They are waylaying the people’s will. Clearly, this is scandalous.

The opposition rejects the results and has been arguing that they won the necessary 50.3% for Mr. Tsvangirai to become the new president. Following the release of the official results however, they have not made these pronouncements publicly. No date has been set for the run-off election.

Tribute to Ann Coulter.

Gotta love Letterman:

Palestine crisis attracts Mediators Attention.

The calamity in Palestine has finally attracted the attention of the Quartet; the US, EU, Russia and UN. Talks in London today that will involve US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are aimed at reaching a resolution to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Western aid agencies are calling for immediate action, ahead of the talks

“Only a trickle of medicine, food, fuel and other goods is being allowed in,”

warned a statement from agencies including Oxfam and Christian Aid.

“It has made people highly dependent on food aid, and brought the health system and basic services such as water and sanitation near to collapse.”

They added.

The Palestinian Authority is in a virtual standstill and the economy is all but inactive. American officials have been critical of states that have not delivered on their pledges of aid; they have reported out $717m promised by the Arab League, only $153m of the pledges were delivered, all from three countries: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Algeria.

US officials pointed out that of $717m promised by Arab League members, only $153m of Arab pledges have been delivered, all from three countries: Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Algeria.

While pressure on the Arab League and international donor to deliver on their commitments is welcomed. It is necessary to pressure Israel to ease its restrictions and virtual siege on Gaza, where nothing, absolutely nothing, can go in or out except very basic aid materials.