American bias toward Israel doesn't add up

 Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are making headlines all over the world by claiming in a paper that the so-called Israel lobby skews American foreign policy so excessively in favor of Israel that it hurts the interests of U.S. citizens. And Penn's own Francisco Gil-White, Psychology professor and ethnic-conflict specialist, jumped into into the fray by publishing a reply in Israel National News.

I read both pieces, and I am disturbed by the implications.

Accusations of Jewish conspiracies have a long history in the West. When about 23 million people died in the Black Plague of the 14th century, many said, absurdly, that "the Jews" were poisoning the wells. Anti-Jewish exterminations followed.

The Nazis falsely accused "the Jews" of secretly conspiring against non-Jews, and, subsequently, more than 5 million Jews were killed. So, when two big-name political scientists tell us that the "Israel lobby" is harming the interests of non-Jews by controlling the foreign policy of the world's only superpower, we should be concerned that this may be anti-Semitic propaganda. Indeed, many well-known professors at prestigious universities engaged in anti-Semitic propaganda before World War Two.

I asked Gil-White if the paper written by Mearsheimer and Walt -- of the University of Chicago and Harvard University, respectively -- is anti-Jewish propaganda. He replied, "To form an opinion we must compare claims against facts. Mearsheimer and Walt claim that U.S. foreign policy is absurdly pro-Israel, but the net effect of U.S. foreign policy has actually been consistently anti-Israel. Moreover, the 'Israel lobby' works hard to produce such anti-Israel policies."

In fact, as Gil-White pointed out, many of the most renowned Jewish leaders don't echo a pro-Israel stance.

For example, World Jewish Congress President Edgar Bronfman suggested that "Arab suicide bombers in the West Bank and Gaza should concentrate on Jewish settlers," Gil-White said.

That's right. The president of the World Jewish Congress told Arab terrorists which Jews to kill.

"If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world [the settlers] were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel, and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent [the bomber] into Israel proper, which is ghastly," Bronfman said in 2003.

So, Bronfman thinks that sending suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians in Jerusalem is "ghastly," but he thinks killing Jewish settlers is not "ghastly."

That doesn't sound very pro-Israel.

But everybody says that U.S. foreign policy is pro-Israel -- doesn't the United States give a lot of money and weapons to Israel?

"Not when you compare it against the money and weapons that the enemies of Israel get from the U.S.," Gil-White said.

And he's right. For example, according to Frontline, a public-affairs television program produced by PBS, no country gets more American weapons than Israel's mortal enemy, Saudi Arabia. And when you subtract the $1.3 billion Egypt -- only one of Israel's enemies -- gets from the $2.2 billion in aid Israel receives, the remainder is already half.

What else has the United States done that isn't exactly pro-Israel?

In 1982-83, the American military rescued Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization, an anti-Semitic terrorist organization, from the Israelis and transported them to safety in Tunisia.

In 1991 the United States threatened to cut off all aid to Israel unless it participated in what became the Oslo Peace Accords, which brought the PLO out of its Tunisian exile and made it the government of West Bank and Gaza Arabs. Only after Oslo did the suicide bomber problem really begin.

The Bush administration has been pressuring Israel to release land it gained after defending itself from an Arab attack in 1967. Yet immediately following that war, a secret Pentagon study (since declassified) stated: "From a strictly military point of view, Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders."

The Pentagon stated that, in order to survive, Israel would have to keep the West Bank and Gaza. So the U.S. government is now pressuring Israel to give up land which it knows is required for Israel's defense.

If all that constitutes a pro-Israel policy, what is an anti-Israel policy?

Gil-White has raised some very important issues in his reply to Mearsheimer and Walt. I encourage you to read both articles and judge for yourself.

Full Disclosure: I took Gil-White's course "Psychology of Ethnicity" last fall. It was taught for no credit after Penn Psychology, in a move that infuriated many students including myself, cancelled it.

Alex Weinstein is a junior history major from Bridgeport, W.V. Straight to Hell appears on Thursdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.