Tweet
THE CRITIC OF MY FRIEND IS MY ENEMY
Sabbah.biz
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/16/stephen-m-walt-the-critic-of-my-friend-is-my-enemy/
June 17 2010
Turkey and the Neocons
It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were
strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent
neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and
groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged
Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what
happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World
War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no
match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that
the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge
of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that
political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations
between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however -- fueled primarily
by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians -- the
ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders
of Israel began switching sides, too.
Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service,
detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being
strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the
Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story
better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.
First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives
are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly
a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support
for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism.
But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by
the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy,
and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only
democracy in the Middle East."
But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it
is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally
of the United States. Of course,Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but
show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey
to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish
government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the
Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after
the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the
lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a
flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey,
and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.
Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the
neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not.
So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked
overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq -- even though Osama bin
Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- and why they are now pushing
for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.
As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American
feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it
in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and
provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused
of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is
important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular
clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.
One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and
Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is
good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This
claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it
also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's
interests over America's. After all, if the interests of the two
states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be
no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue
(a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.
I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has
become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship
would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts
the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region
and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions -- yes,
billions -- of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues,
such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use
our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President
Obama's failures on this front -- despite his repeated pledges to
do better-make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual
relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased
its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes
it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of
criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts
about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the
wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.
Although the United States and Israel do share certain common
interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests
are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a
tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what
is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly)
will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to
beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal
track record and their underlying motivations.
* Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of
international relations at Harvard University.
From: A. Papazian
Sabbah.biz
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2010/06/16/stephen-m-walt-the-critic-of-my-friend-is-my-enemy/
June 17 2010
Turkey and the Neocons
It couldn't be more predictable. Back when Israel and Turkey were
strategic allies with extensive military-to-military ties, prominent
neoconservatives were vocal defenders of the Turkish government and
groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and AIPAC encouraged
Congress not to pass resolutions that would have labeled what
happened to the Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World
War I a "genocide." (The "Armenian lobby" is no slouch, but it's no
match for AIPAC and its allies in the Israel lobby). The fact that
the ADL was in effect protecting another country against the charge
of genocide is more than a little ironic, but who ever said that
political organizations had to be ethically consistent? Once relations
between Israel and Turkey began to fray, however -- fueled primarily
by Turkish anger over Israel's treatment of the Palestinians -- the
ADL and AIPAC withdrew their protection and Congressional defenders
of Israel began switching sides, too.
Last week Jim Lobe published a terrific piece at InterPress Service,
detailing how prominent neoconservatives have switched from being
strong supporters (and in some cases well-paid consultants) of the
Turkish government to being vehement critics. He lays out the story
better than I could, but I have a few comments to add.
First, if this doesn't convince you that virtually all neoconservatives
are deeply Israeli-centric, then nothing will. This affinity is hardly
a secret; indeed, neocon pundit Max Boot once declared that support
for Israel was a "key tenet" of neoconservatism.
But the extent of their attachment to Israel is sometimes disguised by
the claim that what they really care about is freedom and democracy,
and therefore they support Israel simply because it is "the only
democracy in the Middle East."
But now we see the neoconservatives turning on Turkey, even though it
is a well-functioning democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally
of the United States. Of course,Turkey's democracy isn't perfect, but
show me one that is. The neocons have turned from friends of Turkey
to foes for one simple reason: Israel. Specifically, the Turkish
government has been openly critical of Israel's conduct toward the
Palestinians, beginning with the blockade of Gaza, ramping up after
the brutal bombardment of Gaza in 2008-2009, and culminating in the
lethal IDF attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. As Lobe shows, a
flock of prominent neoconservatives are now busily demonizing Turkey,
and in some cases calling for its expulsion from NATO.
Thus, whether a state is democratic or not matters little for the
neocons; what matters for them is whether a state backs Israel or not.
So if you're still wondering why so many neoconservatives worked
overtime to get the U.S. to invade Iraq -- even though Osama bin
Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan -- and why they are now pushing
for war with Iran, well, there's your answer.
As I've said repeatedly, there's nothing wrong with any American
feeling a deep attachment to a foreign country and expressing it
in politics, provided that they are open and honest about it and
provided that other people can raise the issue without being accused
of some sort of bigotry. The neocons' recent volte-face over Turkey is
important because it reveals their policy priorities with particular
clarity, and Lobe deserves full points for documenting it for us.
One last comment. Neoconservatives usually portray American and
Israeli interests as essentially identical: In their eyes, what is
good for Israel is good for the United States and vice versa. This
claim makes unconditional U.S. support seem like a good idea, and it
also insulates them from the charge that they are promoting Israel's
interests over America's. After all, if the interests of the two
states are really one and the same, then by definition there can be
no conflict of interest, which means that the "dual loyalty" issue
(a term I still don't like) doesn't arise.
I hold the opposite view. I believe that the "special relationship" has
become harmful to both countries, and that a more normal relationship
would be better for both. Right now, the special relationship hurts
the United States by fueling anti-Americanism throughout the region
and making us look deeply hypocritical in the eyes of billions -- yes,
billions -- of people. It also distorts our policy on a host of issues,
such as non-proliferation, and makes it extremely difficult to use
our influence to advance the cause of Middle East peace. President
Obama's failures on this front -- despite his repeated pledges to
do better-make this all-too-obvious. At the same time, this unusual
relationship harms Israel by underwriting policies that have increased
its isolation and that threaten its long-term future. It also makes
it nearly impossible for U.S. leaders to voice even the mildest of
criticisms when Israel acts foolishly, because to do so casts doubts
about the merits of the special relationship and risks incurring the
wrath of the various groups that exist to defend it.
Although the United States and Israel do share certain common
interests, it is becoming increasingly clear that their interests
are not identical. This situation puts die-hard neoconservatives in a
tough spot, as it could force them to choose between promoting what
is good for America or defending what they think (usually wrongly)
will be good for Israel. And insofar as prominent neocons continue to
beat the drums for war, it behooves us to remember both their abysmal
track record and their underlying motivations.
* Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of
international relations at Harvard University.
From: A. Papazian