Mearsheimer and Walt and the Israel question

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt dropped by the boardroom Tuesday to discuss their new book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The book expands on an article Mearsheimer and Walt published in The London Review of Books last year. That piece set off an ongoing controversy as opponents flamed the authors and Mearsheimer and Walt hit back. Read on to see if they got a warmer welcome from the Los Angeles Times.

On Israel's strategic value in the post-Cold War era

Nick Goldberg: On the strategic side of things, when you say in the book, and you said just now, that our relationship with Israel makes it harder to defeat the terrorists, is that really a legitimate reason for, you know, upending a 60-year relationship? I mean it's kinda, you could argue that's blaming the victim certainly.

Stephen Walt: Well, the point is what are America's interests — strategic interest; we'll leave moral questions aside — America's strategic interests in the Middle East, right? I would argue that there are three: keeping the oil flowing out to world markets, because we all like to drive SUVs and other countries need oil too; second, trying to discourage countries from getting weapons of mass destruction — that's something that would be an interest of ours even if Israel didn't exist, by the way: we wouldn't want Iran to develop a nuclear capability, and we wouldn't have wanted Saddam Hussein to develop a nuclear capability; and third, the terrorist problem that the whole world now faces, but particularly the United States.

We worry about anti-American terrorists, terrorists that want to attack the United States like al Qaeda. And the point is that the relationship with Israel is both one of the things that's motivated bin Laden and others — and the 9/11 Commission report makes this clear, that it was one, not the only, but one of the key items on his agenda — and second that it makes it easier for him to recruit people in these societies, by pointing out unfair policies. And finally it makes other regimes in that region more reluctant to side openly with us on any number of other issues, because again, we're seen as so controversial inside the region, and so one-sided. It's not to say they don't, but it's so much harder to get.

One way to think about this, I always say, is look: Whatever you think Israel's strategic value was in 1985, it's pretty hard to argue that the value's gone up, from 1985 to 2007. All right, make the Cold War case, but I think almost any objective look at this would say that the strategic value's gone down. Yet American support continues to increase and if anything becomes less and less conditional over time. George Bush the elder on a few occasions put some pressure on the Israelis and made some progress. Jimmy Carter put some pressure on the Israelis. Clinton didn't put much, and Bush has been unable to put virtually any, despite occasionally trying briefly. So the puzzle is if the strategic value is going down, why is the support going up?

Jim Newton: And when you say support, how are you measuring support?

Stephen: Two ways. The material aid we continue to give: $3 billion to $4 billion in direct and indirect economic and military aid every year.

Jim: And that's steadily increasing?

Stephen: No, I wouldn't... Increasing pretty steadily. But not at 10% a year or anything like that. So that's part of it. But the consistent diplomatic support — vetoing U.N. resolutions that are critical of Israel... I think we, what was it 42?

John Mearsheimer: Between '72 and 2006...

Stephen: ...we vetoed 42 security council resolutions critical of Israel, and that's more than the sum total of all other vetoes cast by all other security council members. Uh, the kind of backing we gave them in the Lebanon war, where we delayed the cease-fire, which was deeply contrary to Israel's interests — which many Israelis now recognize, that the war was a disaster. And we would have been a better ally if we had in fact shut it down quickly, and worked with them to come up with a better a response to the legitimate problem they had with Hezbollah rockets on their border.

On the non-perniciousness of the Lobby

Nick: You say several times in the book that the Israel lobby is, it's not a cabal and it's not monolithic, you know; it's a lot like other interest groups like the NRA and the American Petroleum Institute. Well if that's the case, what's so pernicious about it?

John: There's nothing pernicious about it.

Nick: OK?

John: Tell us what's so pernicious about it.

Jim: Well you wrote the book...

Tim Cavanaugh: Why is it more worthy of a book than the Cuban-American...

Stephen: People have written books about the Cuban-American lobby...