On Sat, 1 Mar 2003, Doug Henwood wrote:
> If partisans of the "Israeli lobby" explanation would like to prove
> their case, then perhaps they could cite an example where the interests
> of that lobby clashed with those of the U.S. ruling class and the Israel
> lobby came out ahead.
There is a reasonable case to be made that support of Israel since the Cold War (to start only there -- I personally would even go farther) is contrary to US interests not only economically but also strategically -- i.e, not only in the money it costs to produce policy outcomes we don't want, but in re our ability to project military force. And to economize on that force -- to get countries in the region to do what we want with the least effort.
But I hasten to add that as soon as you define strategic interests in such a way that the ruling class *could* make a mistake, you have to conclude that it's made more than one. It's in the very nature of setting standards. Close alliance with Israel will by no means be the only one.
For example, I personally would argue that in strategic terms our policy on Taiwan has been a huge mistake since the very beginning -- an impulsive act based on a wrong understanding made against our better judgment at the time and then set in stone. And arguably our policy on Cuba at least since the cold war has been a mistake -- especially if the ruling class considers out policy towards China a success.
And for that matter, I think Vietnam was a mistake purely in ruling class terms -- i.e., they could have maximized even their most evil interests better without it by following Kennan's original definition of containment that excluded such areas. Certainly most of the ruling class that waged it now think so, starting with McNamara.
However, if you define strategic interests tautologically, so that whatever policy the ruling class adopts must be the one that best serves its interests, then naturally such divergences are impossible and there's no point in arguing about it. You've defined the argument out of existence; when it comes to strategic interests, the ruling class can't make a mistake or be misled by definition. This is how I read the objection
> there's no evidence that anyone in the ruling class has thought like
> this [about what constitutes its interests] [and therefore it can't be
> true]
This isn't something you'd say about economic policy. Even though you have more respect than almost anyone on the left for the intellectual and policy cleverness of economic policy makers, in that field I think you'd say that sometimes it at least seems like most of them are wrong. And the ruling class understands economic matters much better than they do strategic matters; it's what they personally do day to day.
I hasten to add that when it comes to Israel and strategic interests, I'm on "the ruling class can make a mistake" side and not "the ruling class has been misled" side. But I believe it is a failure to entertain the first possibility -- and to explain it -- that gives so much fuel to the second. People who decide -- on what I think are reasonable grounds -- that the US ruling class has been acting contrary to its interests in acting out its alliance with Israel are then left with the lobby explanation because no other one is being offered.
There are other ones, though. It is possible to maintain the ruling class is acting contrary to its strategic interests in re Israel and that it is not being manipulated by the Jews. (Even more is it possible to argue that the nation is acting contrary to its interests. I'd say both nations are.) One needn't foreclose the question for fear of falling into the pit of slime. In fact an argument could be made that we need to confront it to keep us from sliding into that pit.
But it all comes back to the idea that there can exist strategic interests that could be better served by different policies than the ruling class is currently pursuing. If you believe the ruling class always recognizes and maximizes its strategic interests, then the argument is moot. And I don't mean that polemically. Look back at US foreign policy for the past 60 years and see if you see any policies that were mistakes from a ruling class or national interest point of view. If you don't see any, then there's no point in arguing. If you do, then there is.
Michael