> My own view, of course, is that the refusal to contemplate a complete cessation of military and economic aid to Israel has less to do with fear of domestic pressure from Jewish and Christian Zionists than with US strategic interests. Such a move, from the POV of the US, would not result in an "offshore balancing" but in an new imbalance of power in the region in favour of Iran and the Islamist movement which would be much more detrimental to US interests than it's current support of Israel. This doesn't, however, preclude the US threatening Israel at critical junctures with more limited suspension of military, financial, diplomatic or other forms of support unless Israel complies with US demands. Israel typically complies. This happened notably under Eisenhower in 1956 following the Suez invasion, but also under Ford in 1976 initiating the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, under Reagan in 1982 limiting the Israeli incursion in Lebanon designed to wipe out the PLO, and more tent!
> atively under the timid Obama administration earlier this year with regard to curbs on settlement expansion. So there is room to squeeze Israel, notwithstanding the existence of the Lobby, in order to satisfy wider US policy objectives - but well short of throwing it to the wolves, which would be in conflict with those same objectives.
>
I'm a little confused by this. First, I don't see why cutting off aid to Israel would result in "a new imbalance of power in the region in favour of Iran and the Islamist movement." Is the correlation of forces so finely balanced right now that a mere US aid cutoff would immediately result in Iranian regional domination? Do you really believe US policy is only trying to maintain an equal regional power balance between Israel and Iran? That's not how I see it - to me, it looks like Israel clearly dominates and the US, rather than balancing off that lopsided domination, is propping it up. (That's also Walt's position.)
Second, I didn't realize we were arguing about why the US isn't following a policy of "throwing Israel to the wolves." That doesn't seem like such a puzzle. The puzzle is why the US refuses to use its influence to settle the Israeli-Pal. conflict along reasonable lines - since by refusing to do this the US seemingly creates a lot of problems for itself. It's not clear why fostering such a settlement would create Iranian regional hegemony. If anything, it might make it easier for Arab states to more openly (and therefore boldly) align themselves with US attempts to forestall Iranian domination. The Arab states are already on board for that, of course, but right now they're restrained from acting too openly in line with the US.
I think there's a widespread misconception on the left that if the US really wanted to, it could force a settlement on Israel very easily. Just a stern phone call threatening US support and Israel would fall into line. Chomsky often makes this claim, but I think he's wrong. Forcing a reasonable settlement on Israel means forcing a nuclear state whose army and political leadership are suffused with religious fundamentalists and ultra-nationalist extremists to abandon its religious-colonial project and uproot 9% of its (Jewish) population. If you think that would be easy, ask yourself how the US is doing with its effort to get Pakistan to stop supporting the Taliban, and then multiply by 3.
I obviously think it's worth doing, but the degree of difficulty and risk of disaster is high. A US policymaker doesn't have to be convinced of the strategic utility of Greater Israel - nor under the Lobby's sway - to have little appetite for such a thing.
SA