Israel can stand to be criticized, but it's not always wrong

A strange thing happened to me while reading "The Israel Lobby" by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. I went from nodding my head at the obviousness of it all -- of course there's an Israel lobby and of course it's effective -- to a mounting irritation at the supposed unrelenting mendacity of Israel and the unrelenting assurance of the authors that they supported its existence. By the time I put down the book, occasional critic of Israel though I be, I was ready to burst into "Hatikvah," the Israeli national anthem.

The book, which almost instantly made Amazon's list of best-sellers, has produced the sort of intellectual and emotional storm you don't have to be Jewish to understand … but it sure helps. Mearsheimer and Walt have been called anti-Semitic by The New York Sun (among others), and they have been praised as gutsy truth-tellers by elements of the British press (among others), an irony we shall return to in a moment. My own reading of the book found no evidence of anti-Semitism, but also no evidence that either man has an ounce of sympathy for Israel.

That's OK. No one has an obligation to love or admire Israel and it is undoubtedly true, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue, that the Jewish state is no longer a strategic asset to the United States, if it ever was. It is, after all, a tiny country with no oil that is loathed by neighboring countries that have lots of oil. Not only that, but these neighboring countries also produce much of the world's terrorists and while it is debatable that Israel is always their No. 1 concern, it's way up there. For the U.S. to remain Israel's wingman can hardly be characterized as being in our self-interest.

The argument can be made also that America's policy of supporting almost anything the Israeli government does -- from permitting West Bank settlements to launching disastrous wars such as last summer's in Lebanon -- is no good for Israel, either. Certainly, the so-called Israel lobby, mostly funded and controlled by conservative elements in the American Jewish community, has done Israel no favor by not criticizing West Bank settlements or the harsh treatment of Palestinians.

All these points are made by Mearsheimer and Walt -- and bully for them. Where Israel is wrong, they say so. But where Israel is right, they are somehow silent. By the time you finish the book, you almost have to wonder why anyone in their right mind could find any reason to admire or like Israel. It is always doing the most dastardly things and then looking to Uncle Sam either for money or muscle.

To their credit, they were right about opposing the invasion of Iraq, arguing Saddam Hussein was no threat to America's national security, and that his purported link to al-Qaida was concocted. And in their fashion they are right, too, about Israel. It is a strategic liability.

But so, in a way, is Britain. In a fight, it would be of little consequence. In 2006, Britain spent about $60 billion on its military. The U.S. spent $529 billion. You could argue, therefore, that Britain is a strategic burden -- and some made that argument in the run-up to World War II.

There are factors, though, that move the scale not at all, but have an incalculable weight nonetheless. Who and what are we as a nation if we measure everything by self-interest? Who and what are we as a nation if we abandon our friends, blowing empty kisses to them as we cut them loose? Who and what are we as a nation if we don't calculate the incalculable: Values? Principles? For me, the answer is plain. This would be an emotionally arid place. I don't know the national anthem for oil.

In the end, Mearsheimer and Walt disappoint. They had an observation worth making. But their argument is so dry, so one-sided -- an Israel lobby that leads America around by the nose -- they suggest that not only do they not know Israel, they don't know America, either.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group