Harvard study: US foreign policy serves Israel

Kulapavana · March 17, 2006

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Source: Haaretz</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top>Published: March 17, 2006 Author: Shmuel Rosner</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Observers in Washington said yesterday that the study was liable to stir up a tempest and spur renewed debate about the function of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby. The Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.

John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen M. Walt from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government do not present new facts. They rely mainly on an analysis of Israeli and American newspaper reports and studies, along with the findings of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.

The study also documents accusations that American supporters of Israel pushed the United States into war with Iraq. It lists senior Bush administration officials who supported the war and are also known to support Israel, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and David Wurmser. The authors say the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is a source of serious concern and write that it has even caused damage to Israel by preventing it from reaching a compromise with its neighbors.

Kulapavana · March 20, 2006

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Source: Jewish Telegraph Agency</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top>Published: March 20, 2006 Author: Staff</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

President Bush said the United States would use “all military might” to protect Israel. Bush was in Cleveland on Monday, fielding national security questions at the City Club. Asked about Iran’s nuclear threat, he said: “The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace, it´s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I’ve made it clear, and I´ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel.”

suchandra · March 21, 2006

<TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Source: Haaretz</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top>Published: March 17, 2006 Author: Shmuel Rosner</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD vAlign=top></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Middle East policy is not in America's national interest and is motivated primarily by the country's pro-Israel lobby, according to a study published yesterday by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Chicago.

Observers in Washington said yesterday that the study was liable to stir up a tempest and spur renewed debate about the function of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby. The Fatah office in Washington distributed the article to an extensive mailing list.

"No lobby has managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. and Israeli interests are essentially identical," write the authors of the study.

John J. Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago's political science department and Stephen M. Walt from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government do not present new facts. They rely mainly on an analysis of Israeli and American newspaper reports and studies, along with the findings of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem.

The study also documents accusations that American supporters of Israel pushed the United States into war with Iraq. It lists senior Bush administration officials who supported the war and are also known to support Israel, such as Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and David Wurmser. The authors say the influence of the pro-Israel lobby is a source of serious concern and write that it has even caused damage to Israel by preventing it from reaching a compromise with its neighbors.

Jeffrey Rothfeder, (author of Every drop for sale ) , quoting a World Bank official, former Vice President Ismail Serageldin, reminded readers that "the next world war will be over water."

In Israel, extraction has surpassed replacement by 2.5 billion meters in the last 25 years.

Posted Image

Only the region's countries, the riparian states of Syria, Turkey and Iraq themselves have directly conferred on the issue of sharing the water of the Tigris and Euphrates. The United States cannot dictate water usage as a formal part of its foreign policy, or even legitimate the crisis surrounding clean water, in part because of its wholly unsustainable practices, and in part because a straightforward concession on the issue of dwindling water supplies would mean an complete overhaul of global diplomatic relations with a new emphasis on aquatic vulnerability.

The dialogue about access to clean water is commonplace in peace talks throughout the Middle East, but Western diplomats rarely broach the topic. An anonymous U.S. State Department official quoted in National Geographic said, "people outside the region tend not to hear about the issue (of water). It just doesn't make the news." By design, not by accident, this issue is obscured from Western eyes because the propaganda machinery from Washington, DC has not allowed it. Although water is at the top of the list in negotiations between Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Iraq.

Published after the 9-11 terrorist attacks but prior to the recent war on Iraq, Peaceful Uses of International Rivers: The Euphrates and Tigris Dispute written by water rights expert Hilal Elver outlines the hydrohistory of the Fertile Crescent as well as the present challenges to settling the disputes between countries vying for water access in the 21st century. She notes that the "last trilateral meeting of the Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi technical committee was concluded in Damascus in 1996" with Iraq still under the United Nations-imposed sanctions regime which severely hindered international diplomatic relations. With the United States effectively in control of Iraqi politics and lobbying for the removal of the sanctions, presumably negotiations between the three nations will resume with respect to shared water issues.

Closely tied to the disputes surrounding Iraq and Syria's water supply is the proximity to Israel. Syria faces water difficulties on its southwestern border as well in the water-rich area of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967. The Golan Heights has important water resources that, according to Professor Emeritus Dan Zaslavsky at Bar-Ilan University, if handed back over to Syria would mean that Israel loses nearly one-third of its fresh water. This cosmetic overture to feign regional fairness and non-partiality toward Israel in returning the Golan Heights to Syria does not mask the fact that the United States has strategic goals to control water and oil supplies in the Middle East. So, normally water and oil dont mix but in present Iraq war, water and oil do mix..