The Irony of Great Power Politics - Haaretz - 4/12/2006

[Coastie for Truth]

Who said in 2001, "Conquering and controlling land... remains the supreme political objective in a world of territorial states"? If you answered "Benjamin Netanyahu," guess again-- although he should save the quote for his stump speech.

Who argued that the military power of states-- not the economic, environmental, or political welfare of citizens-- is the only index of "national security"? Not Yuval Steinitz, though the Likud's token PhD might attach the citation to his next jeremiad about the size of Egypt's armored divisions.

Give up? These sound bites of bitkhonism come from International Relations (IR) scholars John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt - the same pair whose recent essay "The Israel Lobby" harshly criticizes the American-Israeli alliance.

Mearsheimer and Walt ignited the blogosphere by blaming American pro-Israel advocates, rather than oil dependence, geopolitical dominance or questionable intelligence, for dragging the US into its Iraqi imbroglio.

<<<SNIP>>>

Editorializations and comments are to be saved for the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article.

Do not selectively quote articles with the intent to change the original meaning.

===================================================

This is "the Message body and must be separate and distinct from the text of the article" and contains very limited excerpts from the text of the article.

Selective quoting is just to parse --

Some memorable snippets from the article:

"... Mearsheimer and Walt understate the influence of their own ideas in Washington - and Jerusalem."

"... Mearsheimer and Walt built reputations as standard bearers of the self styled "Realist" school of power politics. ... Realism is exceptionally straightforward. Its tenets can be summarized in plain language: It's a jungle out there. All the important animals are states, and states are all animals. The game is survival of the fittest, it's every state for itself, and it's always a zero-sum game. Military supremacy isn't everything - it's the only thing. ..."

[pelsar]

1. you mean...

an article that tells it like it is....after removing all the "nice layers" of human rights, intl law etc.....what it comes down to is each country securing the resources for its survival. Each doing its own cost/benefit analysis, each protecting its own culture....

that sounds way too simple, especially for the west who use how much oil in their cars? and other essential creature comforts....and who refuse to take any major steps to reduce it?

[Englander]

2. The article was a critique of such attitudes.

The writer didn't 'tell it like it is', he was constructing a case against the
Realists, the authors of the Israel Lobby report, who he said, 'echo Netanyahu's
tired refrain of "Don't give them a state." The writer wasn't taking the side of
such reactionary nonsense, that 'it's a jungle out there', he was *condemning* such
attitudes. The author took the side of UN resolutions, international opinion, & the
human rights of stateless Palestinians. If yer'd made it to the end of the article, it
was spelt out;

'A rejection of "Realist" unilateralism in the US and Israel would be a silver lining of "The Israel Lobby."'

[bemildred]

3. Somewhat of a straw man, it is.

M & W never pretended to be peaceniks, their fundamental argument is that what is good for Israel is NOT necessarily what is good for the United States; which in realpolitik terms is a very obvious thing, since the US and Israel are very different states and therefore have very different interests. Their paper appears to be an attempt to remove the taboo on discussing that rather obvious idea in an attempt to rationalize the bonehead foreign policy of the USA; which would probably (IMHO) be a good thing for whatever future prospects Israel has too, since Israel relies heavily on the USA in international affairs, and US' global influence is being disemboweled as we speak.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. So, they buy into Kissinger and Kirkpatrick and Nixon?

US's global influence is being disemboweled by ExxonMobil, TexacoChevron, PhillipsConoco, Oxy, Halliburton, (French) Schlumberger, (British) BP, and (Dutch-British) Shell. It is being done under the baton of Bush and Cheney to the Cheers of the American petroleum Institute and the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association.

The US policy in the ME is oil, OIL, OIL and more OIL. Period.

As a Progressive Democrat I have three core issues in 2006 and 2008-

Health Care ((including Medicare and Medicaid)
Safe Secure Pensions (including Social Security)
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - which is the only way to really extricate ourselves from the ME.

even if Israel disappeared tomorrow and all of the Israelis were exiled out of the ME to - we would still be stuck in the ME for OIL

See my blog - http://thinkersunderground.blogspot.com/

[bemildred]

5. Pretty much, I gather.

But is seems to be the norm in "thought" about international relations. Not that there are no exceptions, or that there are not nations that have other agendas; but nations that like to meddle in the affairs of others mostly justify it with realpolitik sort of justifications, and most any nation will resort to that sort of thinking when it feels its interests are threatened. Realpolitik is, after all, a justification for doing anything you like, as long as it looks like its "in your national interest", which as I said can be anything the government wants to do.

The disembowelment is self-inflicted to be sure, and the notion that it is "Israel's" fault is of course silly. But the notion that persons of a pro-Israel persuasion have influence in our government is a matter of simple observation, and the question as to whether they have "undue" influence one that can be reasonably debated, and for which evidence can be produced. Likewise one can reasonably debate whether their influence or decisions have been beneficial to the US, or to Israel, or not, and why.

And the question as to where and how the interests of the USA and Israel coincide, and where they diverge, can also be reasonably debated.

Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to have such a discussion, or debate, because many people have deep emotional investments in those issues, and the emotional content tends to rapidly take over the "debate", which then degenerates quickly.

Which, while not exactly the same, is in the neighborhood of the point these fellows seem to have been aiming at in their quasi-academic paper.

[idontwantaname]

6. pretty much...

but who is whose puppet???

[bemildred]

7. Neither is a puppet, that I can see.

Although I would say the US has the upper hand, when it chooses to use it. Israel is the way it is, in part, because that is the way the US encouraged it to be. It didn't start out like it is now.

It is worth remembering, as someone my age can, that the government of the US has been in the habit of using foreign entanglements to serve the interests of the ruling class, at the expense of the nation's larger interests and the interests of its citizens, for quite a long time. Vietnam was very much a war of choice, as were most of the wars we have fought.

The possibilities that:

a.) persons of a zionist persuasion attempt to influence US policy in directions that they believe are good for Israel,
b.) US government policy has favored Israel, i.e. pursued policies that they think will strengthed Israel, for reasons that have nothing to do with zionism,
and c.) they have both been wrong,

are not mutually on individually exclusive of each other. In fact I think they are all somewhat true.

[Coastie for Truth]

8. The US is an energy hog nation

and attained our world leadership position through exploitation of cheap, "dense" (lots of BTU's per unit mass or volume), accessible energy. He who control the energy - either geologically and/or technologically - calls the shots.